Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 10182005 - C12
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .�� �� Contra, FROM: MAURICE M. SHIU,PUBLIC WORKS o. ,o ,h Costa DIRECTOR DATE: October l$, 2005 spa c--- jaunty G 741. SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution No. 2005/*** declaring the intention to establish"County Service Area(CSA) T-1 (Public Transit)" and to order an assessment for the territory within the boundaries of the proposed CSA, and fixing a hearing for December 6, 2005, to consider the proposed CSA, assessment, and any Objections, Danville area. (Developer Fees) (District III) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT Resolution No. 2005/ *'declaring the intention to: (1) establish "County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit)"; and(2)order an assessment for the territory within the boundaries of the proposed CSA. FIX a Public Hearing for December 6, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 107 of the Board of Supervisors' Chambers, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, to consider the establishment of the CSA and the proposed assessment and any objections thereto. DIRECT the Public Works Director to mail, by first class mail, the "Notice of Adoption of Resolution" (attached as Exhibit E to the Resolution) to each owner of real property (as shown on the last equalized roll of the County) within the territory shown on the Boundary Map (attached as Exhibit B to the Resolution). The sealable Ballot (attached as Exhibit F to the Resolution) and the Engineer's Report (attached as Exhibit G to the Resolution) shall be attached to the Notice of Adoption of Resolution. The Engineer's Report is also on file at the Office of the Clerk of the Board and the Public Works Department. CONTINUED,ON ATTACHMENT: El SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BO,#RD<2MMIT EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES ACTION OF BOA APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE F SUPERVISORS: UNANIMOUS(ABSENT `72Ci' ) I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action AYES: NOES: taken and entered on the minutes of the Board on the date ABSENT: ABSTAIN: shown. Contact:Public Works Department(Engineering Services) Originator:Teri Rie(313-2363) t L']�;4/ ,r} G:\GrpData\EngSvc\BO\2005\10-18\Transit CSA board order.doc ATTESTED -y 14 s— TR:rm JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK and COUNTY ADMINISTER cc: County Administrator County Counsel T.Rie,Eng.Svc. File BY: DEPUTY WC130173850-2 b 7f t SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution No. 2005/*** declaring the intention to establish "County Service Area (CSA) T-1 (Public Transit)" and to order an assessment for the territory within the boundaries of the proposed CSA, and fixinga hearing for December 6, 2005, to consider the proposed CSA, assessment, and any objections, Danville area. (Developer Fees) (District III) DATE: October 18, 2005 PAGE: 2 FISCAL IMPACT: The creation of the CSA will enable the County to finance extended public transit services for the residents of the Alamo Creek and Intervening Properties/Remaining Intervening Properties projects (collectively, Integrated Project) without additional cost to the County General Fund or taxpayers outside of the Integrated Project. Funding provided by developer fees. BACKGROUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S): Establishing County Service Area On July 9, 2002, the Board of Supervisors certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Alamo Creek project (Alamo Creek Project) and the Intervening Properties/Remaining Intervening Properties project (IP/RIP Project) and approved the projects. Together, the Alamo Creek and IP/RIP Projects (Subdivision Nos. 8331, 8381, and 8382) were approved for the development of 1,396 residential units (collectively, Integrated Project). As part of the approval process, the County imposed conditions that require the developers of the Integrated Project to provide and fund public transit services for the residents of the Integrated Project. To accomplish this objective, the developers are required to participate with the County in the formation of a county service area and to approve the levy of benefit assessments on parcels within the boundaries of the CSA. In 2002, litigation was filed challenging the County's approval of the Integrated Project and the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)'s approval of the extension of water service to the Integrated Project. The parties involved in the litigation subsequently entered"into a Comprehensive Agreement to Settle Litigation to resolve the lawsuit (Settlement Agreement). The Settlement Agreement incorporated the conditions of approval relating to the county service area. The formation of the CSA will implement the conditions of approval and the Settlement Agreement. A legal description and a map of the proposed CSA are attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively. The services to be provided by the CSA are extended transit services as described more fully in the report entitled, "Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties Transit Improvements Study: Final Report" (March 2005), prepared at the request of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, and attached as Exhibit C to the Resolution. Pursuant to Government Code sections 25210.3a and 25210.13, the County Board of Supervisors is required to obtain approval of the formation of the CSA from LAFCO prior to establishing the CSA. Accordingly, on June 14, 2005, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2005/357,which initiated LAFCO proceedings. On September 14, 2005, LAFCO adopted Resolution No. 05-15, attached as Exhibit D to the Resolution, which approved formation of the CSA. SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution No. 2005/** declaring the intention to establish "County Service Area (CSA) T-1 (Public Transit)" and to order an assessment for the territory within the boundaries of the proposed CSA, and fixing a hearing for December 6, 2005, to consider the proposed CSA, assessment, and any objections, Danville area. (Developer Fees) (District III) DATE: October 18,2005 PAGE: 3 Imposition of Benefit Assessment As a condition of LAFCO's approval and in order to adequately fund the contemplated transit services, the levy of benefit assessments must be approved. In order to require the territory within the CSA to provide funding for the CSA, it is necessary to impose an assessment. The methodology for the proposed assessment is set forth in the Engineer's Report. Residents of single-family units and multi-family units will be assessed on an equal basis. Residents of senior housing will be provided with separate shuttle service not included within the scope of the CSA, and therefore will not be assessed. The total number of single-family and multi-family unit residents within the Service Area will be divided into the annual Service Area budget to develop the required assessment amount. The proposed maximum assessment (in Fiscal Year 2006 dollars)is as follows: (1) single- family detached homes will be $318; (2) single-family attached homes will be $253; and (3) apartment dwellings will be $230. This assessment will escalate annually based on the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consumer Price Index. Prior to October 18, 2005, a written request to establish the CSA was filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to establish the CSA,pursuant to Government Code section 25210.11(a). By adopting the Resolution, the Board will be taking the next steps to form and fund the CSA. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board of Supervisors does not adopt this Resolution, the CSA will not be formed or funded. This will prevent compliance with conditions of approval for the Integrated Project and the Settlement Agreement, and will prevent extended transit service from being offered to the residents of the Integrated Project. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA Adopted this Resolution on October 18,2005 by the following vote: AYES: Gioia,Piepho,DeSaulner,Glover and Uilkema NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 2005/ ro.;X� 7 4 SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution No. 2005/*** declaring the intention to establish "County Service Area (CSA) T-1 (Public Transit)" and to order an assessment for the territory within the boundaries of the proposed CSA, and fixing a hearing for December 6, 2005, to consider the proposed CSA, assessment, and any objections,Danville area. (Developer Fees) (District III) (Gov't Code §§ 25210.11, 25210.13, 56425, 56652, 56653, 56662, 56663, 56700) RECITALS: A. On July 9, 2002, the Board of Supervisors certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Alamo Creek project (Alamo Creek Project) and the Intervening Properties/Remaining Intervening Properties Project (IP/RIP Project) and approved the projects. Together, the Alamo Creek and IP/RIP Projects (Subdivision Nos. 8331, 8381, and 8382) were approved for the development of 1,396 residential units (collectively, Integrated Project). As part of the approval process, the County imposed conditions that required the developers of the Integrated Project to provide and fund public transit services for the residents of the Integrated Project. To accomplish this objective, the developers are required to participate with the County in the formation of a county service area and to approve the levy of benefit assessments on parcels within the Integrated Project. B. In 2002, litigation was filed challenging the County's approval of the Integrated Project and LAFCO's approval of the extension of water service to the Integrated Project. The parties involved in the litigation subsequently entered into a Comprehensive Agreement to Settle Litigation to resolve the lawsuit (Settlement Agreement). The Settlement Agreement incorporated the conditions of approval relating to the county service area. Formation of a county service area will therefore implement the conditions of approval and the Settlement Agreement, and therefore has been pursued by the County and the developers. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Contact:Public Works Department(Engineering Services) Originator:Teri Rie(313-2363) ATTESTED` C&/,.P—r �'JOHNSWEETEN,SWEETEN, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County VD G;1GrpDatalEngSvc\BO12005\10-18\Transit CSA board order:doc Administrator TR:rrn cc: County Administrator County Counsel T.Rie,Eng.Svc. By Deputy File Resolution No. 2005/ +(74( O SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution No. 2005/ **declaring the intention to establish "County Service Area (CSA) T-1 (Public Transit)" and to order an assessment for the territory within the boundaries of the proposed CSA, and fixing a hearing for December 6, 2005, to consider the proposed CSA, assessment, and any objections,Danville area. (Developer Fees) (District III) DATE: October 18, 2005 PAGE: 2 C. Pursuant to Government Code sections 25210.3a and 25210.13, the County Board of Supervisors (Board) is required to obtain approval of the formation of the CSA from the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)prior to establishing the CSA. Accordingly, on June 14, 2005, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2005/357, which initiated LAFCO proceedings. On September 14, 2005, LAFCO adopted Resolution No. 05-15, attached as Exhibit D,which approved formation of the CSA. D. Prior to October 18, 2005, a written request to establish the CSA was filed with the Board pursuant to Government Code section 25210.11(a). E. As a condition of LAFCO's approval and in order to fund the contemplated transit services, the levy of benefit assessments must be approved. Accordingly, it will be,necessary to impose an assessment on the parcels within the CSA in order to provide for a reliable source of funding for the CSA. F. An Engineer's Report has been prepared by a registered professional engineer, certified in the State of California, in compliance with section 4(b) of Article XIII(D) of the California Constitution. The Engineer's Report (attached as Exhibit G) sets forth the purpose of the CSA, the estimated budget, the total assessment that will be chargeable to the territory within the proposed CSA, the proposed estimated assessment to be levied against each parcel within such territory, and a description of the method used in formulating the estimated assessments. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLVES AND ORDERS THAT: 1. The Board declares its intention to establish the "County Service Area— TI (Public Transit) (CSA). The CSA is proposed to be established under the terms of Chapter 2.2 of Title 3 of the Government Code in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. 2. A legal description and a map of the proposed service area are attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively. The services to be provided are extended transit services as described more fully in the report entitled, "Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties Transit Improvements Study: Final Report" (March 2005), prepared at the request of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, and attached as Exhibit C. 3. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 25210.3a and 25210.13, the County Board of Supervisors is required to obtain approval of the formation of the CSA from LAFCO prior to establishing the CSA. Accordingly, on June 14, 2005, the Board adopted a Resolution of Application to initiate LAFCO proceedings to form the CSA. On September 14, 2005, LAFCO adopted Resolution No. 05-15, attached as Exhibit D, which approved formation of the CSA. 4. Except where funds are otherwise available from service charges collected pursuant to Government Code section 25210.77a, an assessment sufficient to pay for all such services which are furnished on an extended basis will be annually levied upon all property within the CSA. SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution No. 200510declarin the intention to establish "Count Service Area g Y (CSA) T-1 (Public Transit)" and to order an assessment for the territory within the boundaries of the proposed CSA, and fixing a hearing for December 6, 2005, to consider the proposed CSA, assessment, and any objections,Danville area. (Developer Fees) (District III) DATE: October 18, 2005 PAGE: 3 5. In anticipation of the contemplated establishment of the CSA, the Board declares its intention, consistent with the requirements of Article XIII(D) of the California Constitution,Government Code section 25210.1 et seq. and section 53750 et seq., and Elections Code section 4000, to order that the cost and expenses of maintaining and operating the CSA shall be assessed against those parcels within the boundary of the CSA (see attached Boundary Map), which are specially benefited by the CSA. 6. The Board further declares its intention to assess against those parcels shown on the Boundary Map for the 2005 fiscal year and for subsequent years, all or part of the amounts set forth in the Engineer's Report commencing the first fiscal year following issuance of a building permit for that parcel. 7. Notwithstanding Paragraph 5 above, the Board shall not order this assessment if a majority protest exists as defined in Section 4(e) of Article XIII(D) of the California Constitution. 8. Each of the parcels identified on the Boundary Map will receive a particular and distinct special benefit in the form of extended transit services that are over and above the general benefits received by the general public. These special benefits are described in detail in the attached Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties Transit Improvements Study (Exhibit C), which is also on file with the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works. 9. Hereafter, whenever the parcels identified on the Boundary Map are re-subdivided and a final map is approved and filed for recording with the County Recorder, each newly created residential lot will be assessed in the manner provided in the Engineer's Report. 10. The Board has reviewed and considered the Engineer's Report. The special benefit derived from the CSA by each parcel is proportionate to the entire costs of the CSA, and the amount of the assessment is proportional to, and no greater than, the benefits conferred on each parcel. The assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each parcel. 11. No later than three (3) days after adoption of this Resolution, the Board directs the Public Works Director to mail the "Notice of Adoption of Resolution" (attached as Exhibit E) to each owner of real property(as shown on the last equalized roll of the County) within the CSA, as shown on the Boundary Map. The sealable Ballot (attached as Exhibit F) and the Engineer's Report (attached as Exhibit G) shall be attached to the Notice of Adoption of Resolution. 12. The Board will conduct the public hearing on December 6, 2005 at 9:30 a.m., in the Board of Supervisors' Chambers, 651 Pine Street, Room 107, Martinez, California. The following paragraph provides the procedures for returning and tabulating the ballots. A copy of this Notice of Adoption of Resolution, a sealable ballot and the Engineer's Report has been sent to each of the property owners within the boundaries of the CSA. The ballot may be completed and mailed or hand delivered to Public Works Department,Attn: Teri Rie, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez,California 94553, or you may submit your ballot at the public hearing. You may submit, withdraw, or change your ballot at any time prior to the conclusion of the public testimony on the proposed assessment at the public hearing. Immediately before the Hearing,the Public Works r ' � .11 SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution No. 2005/** declaring the intention to establish "County Service Area (CSA) T-1 (Public Transit)" and to order an assessment for the territory within the boundaries of the proposed CSA, and fixing a hearing for December 6, 2005, to consider the proposed CSA, assessment, and any objections,Danville area. (Developer Fees) (District III) DATE: October 18,2005 PAGE: 4 Department shall tabulate the ballots. At the Hearing, the Board shall consider any objections or protests to the assessment and certify the tabulation of the ballots. The Board shall not impose the assessment if there is a majority protest. A majority protest exists if, upon conclusion of the Hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. In tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property. 13. Following the public hearing,the Board shall consider the adoption of the canvas of votes for the CSA. 14. Upon authorization of the assessment, the Board shall levy the authorized assessment on each parcel the first fiscal year following issuance of a building permit for each parcel. 15. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. CON CONTRA COSTA COUNTY S «H DATE: October 5,2005 TO: Members,Board of Supervisors SUBJECT: Request to Establish CSA In connection with the approval process for the Alamo Creek and Intervening Properties projects (collectively, "Integrated Project"), the County imposed conditions on the developers to provide and fund public transit service for the residents of the Integrated Project. On June 14,2005,in accordance with provisions of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)law (Gov't Code § 56000 et seq.) and County Service Area law(Gov't Code §25210 et seq.), the County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2005/357, which initiated LAFCO proceedings to form the proposed county service area. See Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2005/357 for a legal description of the territory proposed to be included in the CSA and Exhibit B to Resolution No. 2005/357 for a map that shows the boundaries of the proposed CSA. The services to be provided by the CSA are described in the report entitled"Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties Transit Improvements Study: Final Report" (March 2005), which is attached as Exhibit C to Resolution No. 2005/357. On September 14, 2005,upon the County's request, the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-15,which approved the formation of"County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit)" for the Integrated Project. Pursuant to Government Code section 25210.11, the undersigned Board members hereby request that the Board institute proceedings to establish the CSA in accordance with the conditions set forth in Contra Costa LAFCO Resolution No. 05-15. This reque hall be filed with the Clerk of the Board. Gayle 9 Uilkema; hair ---ma ie , ,strict III Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Board o ;Supervisor Date Date G:\GrpData\EngSvc\Teri\2005\BOARD MEMBER REQUEST TO ESTABLISH CSA(2).DOC TRxm cc: J.Sweeten,County Administrator Office M.Shiu,Director Public Works Department H.Ballenger,Deputy Director Public Works Department D.Barry,Community Development Department N.Costa,BinghamMcCutehen EXHIBIT Legal Description of Territory within CSA "FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1, (PUBLIC TRANSIT)" ALAMO CREEK f INTERVENING:PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "All ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY, SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN THE COUNTY' OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:` BEING A PORTION OF SECTIONS 4, 5 AND 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, AND A PORTION OF SECTIONS 32 AND 33, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS SUB-PARCEL 1 (ALAMO CREEK) BEGINNING AT THE POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 73018'43" WEST 428.94 FEET FROM A STANDARD STREET MONUMENT IN THE INTERSECTION OF BLACKHAWK DRIVE AND CAMINO TASSAJARA, THE CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE?SYSTEM 1983 DATUM ZONE 3 COORDINATE N' 2281183.90, E 6438840.32,:SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1950.21 FEET,A RADIAL DINE TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 12059'15 WEST;THENCE 1) EASTERLY 492.41 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14028'00", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 491.10 FEET; THENCE 2) SOUTH 88°41'01" EAST 918.99 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT' CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1950.20; THENCE 3) EASTERLY 187.74 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5030'56", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 187.67 FEET, THENCE 4) NORTH 01°2835" EAST 14.90 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NOW TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 2296.66 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 05012'56" EAST; THENCE 5) EASTERLY 214.43 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5020'58", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 214.35 FEET; THENCE 6) SOUTH 79°26'06" EAST 129.83 FEET; THENCE 7) NORTH 78.02'16"WEST 347.00 FEET; THENCE 8) NORTH 01-28'35" EAST 25.42 FEET; THENCE 9) SOUTH 78°02'16" EAST 840.37 FEET; THENCE 10) SOUTH 05033'28"EAST 1146.07 FEET; THENCE 11) SOUTH 02°14'27"WEST 1660.66 FEET; THENCE 12) SOUTH 72°51'09" EAST 248.70 FEET; THENCE 13) SOUTH 19°55'23"WEST 485.76 FEET; THENCE 14) SOUTH 19°04'32" EAST 310.76 FEET; THENCE 15) SOUTH 07°28'37"WEST 231.10 FEET; THENCE 16) SOUTH 14°22'57" EAST 352.47 FEET' THENCE "FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)" ALAMO CREEK J INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 17)SOUTH'13°3228" WEST 520.13 FEET; THENCE 18) SOUTH'37°00'00"WEST 220.00 FEET; THENCE 19) SOUTH 66°45'00"WEST 552.17 FEET; THENCE 20) SOUTH 07-30'00" EAST 160.52 FEET; THENCE 21)SOUTH 05-30'00"WEST 1330.80 FEET; THENCE 22) NORTH 71°34'36"WEST 133.16 FEET; THENCE 23) SOUTH 67°50'49' WEST 63.56 FEET; THENCE 24) SOUTH 44°21'38"WEST 305.22 FEET; THENCE 25) NORTH'05°59'20" EAST,,375.19 FEET; THENCE 26) NORTH 88°4933"WEST 3897.41 FEET; THENCE 27) NORTH 00°49'06"EAST 2652.17 FEET; THENCE 28) NORTH'89°01'17"WEST 247.65 FEET; THENCE 29)NORTH 32°49'40" EAST;867.88 FEET; THENCE 30) SOUTH'90°00'00" EAST'155.88 FEET; THENCE 31) NORTH 33°02'46" EAST 252.87 FEET; THENCE 32) NORTH 75°3433" EAST''378.03 FEET; THENCE 33) NORTH 45-01-27" EAST 353.57 FEET; THENCE 34) NORTH 48°50'17" EAST 346.67 FEET; THENCE 35) NORTH 23026'47" EAST'355.30 FEET; THENCE 36) NORTH 03°12'08"EAST'728.98 FEET; THENCE 37) NORTH 42°36'00" EAST'313.12 FEET; THENCE 38) NORTH 04056'23"EAST 193.13 FEET; THENCE 39) NORTH 45°07'49"WEST 25.69 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 522.14 "FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE:BEARS NORTH 84°47'59" EAST; THENCE 40) NORTHERLY 144.80 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15053'21", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 144.34 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 462.11 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 68*54'38"WEST; THENCE 41) NORTHERLY 134.34 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16039'23", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 133.87 FEET; THENCE 42) NORTH 04°25'59"WEST 225.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 90.00'FEET;THENCE 43) EASTERLY 136.40 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 86050'02",A CHORD DISTANCE OF 123.71 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 2083.05,A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 07035'57" EAST; THENCE 44) EASTERLY 216.66 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 505734", A'CHORD DISTANCE OF 216.56 FEET; THENCE 45) NORTH 76°26'29"EAST 402.94 FEET; THENCE 46)NORTH 03°1'6'26"EAST 34.21 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. "FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)"' ALAMO CREEK 1 INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SUB-PARCEL 2 (INTERVENING PROPERTIES) BEGINNING AT THE'WEST '/< CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, THE CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM 1983 DATUM, ZONE 3 COORDINATE IS N 2,284,433.21, 'E 6,435,138.95; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING 1) NORTH 01°12''32"EAST 1593.82 FEET 2) NORTH 01°12`32"EAST 882.54 FEET; THENCE 3) NORTH 00°51'07" EAST 657.98 FEET; THENCE 4)SOUTH 89008"53" EAST 277.44 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NOW TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH HAVING'A RADIUS OF 45.00 FEET;,A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 38005'26"WEST; THENCE 5) EASTERLY 55.88 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 71008'48", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 52.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 33°03'22"WEST; THENCE 6) EASTERLY 11.24 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32"12'15", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 11.09 FEET; THENCE 7)SOUTH 89°08'53 EAST 102.50 FEET TO THE BEGINNINGOF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 640.00``FEET; THENCE 8) EASTERLY 102.24 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09009'11", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 102.13 FEET'TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 341.29 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 01°00'18°WEST; THENCE 9) EASTERLY 170.55 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID'CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2803757",A CHORD DISTANCE OF 168.78 FEET;' THENCE 10) NORTH 71-22'20" EAST 215.17 FEET; THENCE 11) NORTH 26°22'20" EAST 28.28 FEET; THENCE 12) NORTH 18037'40"WEST 50.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 239.00 FEET;THENCE 13)NORTHERLY 87.22 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°54'31", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 86.73 FEET; THENCE 14) NORTH 02°1'6'51"EAST 465.15 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE 15)NORTHWESTERLY 31.50 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90014'49", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 28.35 FEET; THENCE 16) SOUTH 87-57'58" EAST 46.24 FEET; THENCE "FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA T1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)" ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 17) NORTH 00051'07" EAST 50.01 FEET; THENCE 15)SOUTH 57057'58" EAST 3381.35 FEET; THENCE 19) SOUTH 74024'09"EAST 555.01 FEET; THENCE 20)SOUTH 1005035"WEST 330.93 FEET;THENCE 21)SOUTH 12°35'35" EAST 1024.98 FEET; THENCE 22)SOUTH 10"28'23" WEST 860.58 FEET; THENCE 23)SOUTH 1002823"WEST 557.73 FEET; THENCE 24)SOUTH 32°49'40"WEST 1332.65 FEET; THENCE 25) NORTH 89°01'17"WEST 1063.07 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 756.12 ACRES MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED, AND BY THIS REFERENCE MAGE APART HEREOF; A.P N.'S 206-020-033, 206-190-00l, 002, 003, 005&006, 206-220-001,0102; 003 & 004 AND 206-030-23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33 & 35 AND 2061-020-017. DRU NO.6333 ' ;.EXHIBIT CSA Boundary'Map' r CAMINO TASSAJARA GAMINO 7ASSW-URA to 1y C7{ C't V on S&Z .0 �.; Q �. 'N) i �, hz Sm cn... N L rt' 01 y S tti'1 N40 EE sviEE'T ON ca y ;Q1' '�, '�` , o"i+,` X32 S 3�ECS Cpt2. l� ? t'E7 lea 20,0 �''_ rn ...1 �fl y e�, + ra ate' jr 0N"'�"�(� ( �,*• c \ rJ 1 ° es to CXRip" . ic,�`'• 7o r � {,� �, `"�� �"w {rte+}e�' �' d s�, Winramp • crm pn c� s Olt tk. s r tT x cr �* 2 0 u� o bo- o 'to N �g•49' W6,9 4 ,.. 447 w{ 305,22- 020 05.22 -- 2.2 4 2a,3-010-40b EHT � l MAT MAP SUB-PARCEL 1GRAPHIC SCALE 400 4 300 400 600 1600 SCALE 1"=.400' { IN' FEET ) . EXIST. CAMINO TASSAJARA-- 1 inch = 400 MRICHTS OF THE PUBLIC S 5,33`28►r E 1146.07 S 78°02'16" E 840.37,; S 79'26'06" E 129.83' rz R=2296.66' S 7 N 7$'02'1'6" W0 L=214.43' 347.00 d`05'20'58„ C=214.35' N 01'2835" E 25.42'-f N 01'28'35" E 14.90' Std--PARCEL 1 R=1950.20' L=187,74'QA=05*30'56" C=187.67' 205-050-02 S 88'41'01" E 918:99' e � ► -T- 205-030- 1 206-030---0261 i�27 I N 00`32'59" W 22.91' 1 ' 11,17„ W c -- -- ,N 73"18'43" E 428.94 (T1E TO MON. N 11 288.51' ` 1 205`.-030-025 " R=1950.21 125915 L-492.41' N , 1� A=14'28'00" C=491.10' "FORMATION OF COUNTY SER\110E AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)" ,26„ E 418.08' 30 ALAMO CREEK j INTERVENING PROPERTIES N 0316C+ONTPA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA X206-190-0010 02,0 3,655,Odd �3�33,35 & 206-2201-001,002,003 004 & 223--0120 617?POR) APRIL 17, 20+ 5 SHEET T 3 OF 6 98-1009-11 8381-LAFCt}.DW a EXHIBIT 8 , P'LA'T IAP SU"ARCEL i GRAPHIC SCALE 400 0 200 400 sw 1600 .ft_ AWL SCALE 1"=800' ( IN FEET } I inch = 4€10 rt EXIST. CA INO TASSAJARA-�-" / RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC 053328,, 1146.07 10 S E S 78*02'16" E 840.37 SUBS-PARCEL 1 S 79'26'06„ E 129.83' R=2296.66' L=214.43" ,' p=05'20'58" N 78'02'16" 1'!1(` 347.00' C=214.35' 05112'56 N 01'28'35" E 25.4.2' "FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE G) AREA T--1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)It ALAMO CREEK INTERVENING PROPERTIES N 01`28'35" E 14.90 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A.P.N.'S 206-030--23,25,26,27,28,33,35 & 206--190--0:01'002'003,005,006 & 206-220-001,002'003 004 & 223-020 17 POR} R=1950.20' APRIL. 13, 2005 L=187.74' A=05`3 '56" OCC C-491.10' . iTc ..swum ,a.n-m** 1440 Maria Lane, Suite 200. Walnut Creek. California 94596 WeET _4 OF 6 Phone: (925} 932-6868 fax: (925) 932-0910 98—i{3t 9--i1 8381--LAFCO.DWG SHADOW CREEK DR. HANSEN LN. N 2.288,446.80 S 87'57'58" E 6,435,211. �- CAM[ 0 TASSAJARAJ E 338.35 18 10 ILn ` M 1 Cym 1 LA 1 ' o { LA I cl -' y L4 CASABLANCA S o . s 05 t1' 119 © N > N m 062 tC1 z Q rn m 00 063 � � � ... o > N w v tU y > V.120 0 UI GERSERA ST z NJ :uo a "� , toZa Ap 206-480-117 i '"' � pt �1z > ' 206-494 01 ""` o - r+ NN fxi x 15 > 014 'U"" I I o N j o` rn 13 { HT1 {� hl (� '�"� + +�' . 11 t" rn A ry � {h o �0.— NAAPN C 206-49 10 oar l g `� - O N r-0 ...� 0206-45 011 ro \ N w ry-roCAZ Z +. APfd 12-.(113 ! CA 0 � z too M x}14 °} f vn�z ig-0 Ili 0 206-450` 15 / C,J v U0APN ;0'0 80 11Y rn APN8/ ? 206-140-029 ` �, 7 1 1 �p AIN , 206-140-017 {ni t APN 206-140-00609 N' 1 tT! 4 to to _. 0 1z rh,Z�r 206-X140-012 Mm 1Vm ti� I z APNca+c A 206-140-020 to \ � m N 89`01'17" W 1063.07" 25 Mo IZ �; Z 4203.46' Ow a L4 N '89*01'17" W' n� � r",v f H IT "W PLAT MAP SUB-PARCEL 2 :6 "FORMATION OF COUNTY SEk'fbE,, AREA T--1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)" AL.AMO CREEK / INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A.P.N. S 206--030-23 25 26 27,28,33,35 & 206-190-001,002,06.3'605:006 & 206--220--001,002,003 004 & 223--020--017POR APRIL 1'7, 20 5 200 0 100 200 400 rn z M z b Omni AJ�, L4 Cc GRAPHIC SCALE w NZ N po 45, IN FEET ) �„ in vp' 14M 1 inch X00 ft., Nr rn o CN p 02 rte- r- N 0319'39" w 'C3 CAMINO T'ASSAJARA 37.66'(7IE 7n CLQ rte- S87',57'58"E 889.59" (TIE) A=90`14'49" rn z w 587'57'58"E 46,24' 16 R=20.00' 41 `' Z' 0, C=28.35' wj to v A=20 54'31" A=32"12'15" R=239.00' c ASN R=20.00' L=87.22' 206-480-025 •- L=11.24 �-- A=28'3757" C=86.73' 13 ;n C=11.09' ' R=341.29' 026 o S89`08'53"E u� L=170.55' 027 `9 102.50' 7 C=168.78, N18'37'40"W 2�+ 50.55' 7 2 028 � ,� z �( 118 277.44' 4 2� 1 �� d 28.28" 11 CASABLANC ST S89'08'53"E 119 N Q=71'1'38'48" e'er L1=09`09'11" R=45.00` R=640,00' osz L=55.88' L=1152.24'' v+ C=52.36' C=102.13' SHEET 6 OF 6 EXHIBIT Alamo Creek/Intervening properties Transit Improvements Study M. ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY Final Report Prepared for: Contra Costa County Community Development Department Prepared by: repri ne,+r�x Wilbur Smith Associat'.es WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES March 2005 4 TABILE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.0 Project Description .................. ........ .... .. ...... ....... ......... ............,...... .. ....-,...,. 1.1 1.1 Existing Conditions. .. .. 1-3 1.1.1 Census 2000 Journey To Work Data. 1-�3 13.2 Vehicle Occupancy!......... ... 14 1.2 Transit Demand. .. ..... .. ...... ... ....... 1-5 1.2.1 Land Use. ... .....................................,........................................................ 1-5 1.2.2 Calculation of Transit Demand. .... .... .... ... . . . .... 1.5- 1 2.3 Different Modes of Transit Demand... ...... .. ....... ........ ........ . ,.,.......... 1-7 1.3. Existing Transit Service. ... ... 1-8 1.3.1 Contra Costa County Connection Service'. ... .... . ...,.. 1-9 1.3.2 BARTMode of Access... ., ... ..... ........ 1.1 I 1.4 Market Analysis.. .. ... ......... ..... . ..... .. .. ... .... 1-12 CHAPTER 2 — PROMISING BUS SERVICE STRATEGIES 2.0 Commute Market Origins and Destinations.............................................................2-1 2.1 Employment Destinations.............. ..... ....... . ...... .... . ................. ................. . ....2-1 2.1.1 Regional Transit Hubs............................... .......................................2-1 2.1.2 Residential Origins ..... ... .......................... ...............................................2-1, 2.2 Market Dimensions......... .................. .....I...... ..:..., ... .. .. .................. . .............2.2 2.3 Bus Access Options at the Proposed Project Sites..... .... ..... ........ ......... .. ..:........2-2 2.3.1 Flexible Route Option......... ........ .... .. .......... . . .............. ... . . ............2-2 2.3.2 Fixed Route Option#I. ...., ... .. .I... ...... . .....2-3 2.3.3 Fixed Route Option#2 .. _ . .. .., .. .....2-3 2.3.4 Fixed Route Option#3..... ............. . . ......... ............... .. ......... .. ..........2-3 2.3.5 Summary......................... . .... ......... ......... ........ . ........ "........ .. ...........2-7 2.4 Potential Service Linkage Strategies....... ..... . ............... .. . ..........I. ..... .............2-7 214.1 Strategy A—Walnut Creek. . .. ...................2-7 .2:4.2 Strategy B—Dublin/Pleasanton BART Strategy................... .... ........ .....2-9 2.4.3 Strategy C—Walnut Creek BART via Bishop Ranch................................2-9 2.4.4 Strategy D—Hacienda Business Park............ ... ... ...........................I......2-9 2.4.5 Strategy E—Bishop Ranch Shuttle. ., .. .2-9 2.4.6 Summary, .................................... .................................... ,2-14 CHAPTER 3 -- IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS 3.4 New Service. ... .. .. ..... .3-1 3.0.1 Walnut+Creek BART Service(Strategy A-3). .3-1 3.0.2 Dublin/Pleasanton BART and Hacienda.Business Park Service.. . ..........3-2 3!0.3 Summary. 3-3 3.1 Modification of Current Service ......... ............ ......... ...... ..... .... ..... .... ........ .....3-3 ALAMO GREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2{305 Page I TABLE OF CONTENTS' 3.1.1 Route 960. ... .3-3 3.1.2 Route 970. ... .. .3-4' 3.1..3 Summary .. .. .....3-4 3.2 Vehicle Needs.., .. . .. .. .3-4 3.3 Management Options...... ......... ....... .. ........: ........ .... .......... , ......... .... ......3-5 3.3.1 County Connection. ..... .3-5 3.3.2 Private Contractor. ..... ................ .... .. ..... ............. .... ... . ...... ...........3-6` 3.4 ADA Compliance. .3-6 3.5 Phased Implementation........ . ... ......... ... .... . . ......... ..... .... ...,......... ... ..., ..........3-6 3.5.1 Service/Management Phasing Strategy....... ......... ................ . . ...........3-6 3.6 Marketing and Fare Plan....... . ... .......... ...... .. ....... . ........ .......... . ......... ... .......34 3.7 Resource Investment Plan......... ......... ... ........ . ...... .......... ... ..... ..... . .. ..... .......3-9 3.7.1 Annual Operating Costs..,......... ......... ........ .... ...., ........ ....... .....,.... ....3.9 3.7.2. Capital Costs..... . .. .... .... . ... .3-11 3.7.3 Funding:'. .. .. . .. . .... .... .3-11 3.8 Potential Benefits................................................................................................. ..3-1 I LIST OF TABLES" Table 1: Contra Costa County,'Residents--Place of Work. ........ . ............ ...... . ............ 1-3 Table 2: Mode Share for the Proposed Project Sites ............ ............................ .. ............1-4 Table 3 Average Vehicle Occupancy .......... .. ...... ......... . ........ ..... ... .............. ........ 1-5 Table 4: Summary of Daily Person Trips........................................................................... 1-6' Table 5 Summary of Total Daily Public Transit Trips...... ......... ......... . ............. ... ..... 1-7 Table 6 Daily Transit Trips by Type of Transit.............. ......... .... .......... ...... . .......... 1-$ Table 7: Summary Comparison'of Service Strategies................................... . ........2-15 Table 8: Walnut Creek BART Service Morning Schedule. ......... .............. .... ........ . ....3-2 Table 9 Walnut Creek.BART Service Evening Schedule..................................................3-2 Table 10: Dublin/Pleasanton Morning BART Service......... .. ....... ........ . ........... ..... .....3-2 Table 11: Dublin/Pleasanton Evening BARTService.........................................................3-3 Table 12: Annual Cost Estimates for Service Options......................................................3-10 LIST OF FIGURES:. Figure I: Project Site Location.,, .,....... .. .......... ....... .... ..... ....... ............... .. ......... .... 1-2 Figure 2: County Connection Route 221........ ............ . ........... ..... ....... ......... ........... 1-10 Figure 3: Average Daily'Ridership per Run on CCCTA Route 221......... ................... ... 1-11 Figure 4: Local Routing—Option#1 ............................... .. 2-4 Figure 5: Local Routing-Option#2'....... ..2-5 Figure 6: Local Routing-Option#3 .. .. .. .. .2-6 Figure 7: Alternative A Walnut Creek BART........ ......... .. .... ................. .. ...........2-8 Figure 8: Alternative B Dublin/Pleasanton BART...................... ........ .... ...... ..........240 Figure 9: Alternative C-Bishop Ranch---Walnut Creek BART.....................................2-11 Figure 10: Alternative D Bishop Ranch—Dublin/Pleasanton BART.....;...............................2-12 Figure 11: Alternative E-Bishop Ranch Shuttle..... . ........... ........ ............,............. ...2-13 51S44q AIAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES'TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS:STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Paged TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES A: A-1 Means of Transportation to Work A-2 BART Mode of Access B: B-1 Vehicle Trip Generation Rates B-2 Vehicle Trips B-3 Person Trips B-4 Transit Trips C: C-1 County Connection RTE 221 C-2 Existing 964 BIC and 70/C Routes D: Bishop Ranch Employment Centers E: County Connections Adopted Policy for Service Expansion ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page ei Chapter INTRODUCTION This report describes potential transit service strategies directed at commute travel demand' generated by Alamo Creek and the Intervening Properties (herein referred to jointly as the "Proposed projects"and individually as the"proposed Alamo Creek Project"and the"Proposed' Intervening Properties Project"). The fallowing sections in Chapter 1 describe the project location,travel mode information, employment location information, existing bus and rail transit service, and other transportation studies conducted in the area. This assessment is intended to provide the background with which to understand potential transit use and market demands for the Proposed Projects. 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Proposed Alamo Creek Project and the Proposed sIntervening Properties Project sites are located on a total of 609 acres in Contra Costa County. The 'Proposed Projects would involve construction of two new residential projects located in the area south of Camino Tassajara between Hansen Lane and Finley Road. The Proposed Intervening Properties Project;,would '- include construction of 377 single family residential units and:96 multi-family residential units. The Proposed Alamo Creek Project would include construction of 679 single family residential units, 124 multi-family residential units, and 120 senior housing units. In addition,a school with a capacity for 740 students and several soccer fields are also proposed. The study area,for the following transit analysis is located in unincorporated Contra Costa County south of Camino Tassajara, west of the Blackhawk community, and east;of Lawrence Road {just east of the Town of Danville). Other roadways within the vicinity of proposed Projects are Shadow Creek Drive, Crow Canyon Road, Lawrence Read, Tassajara Ranch Drive, Blackhawk Drive (gated), Mansfield Drive (gated), Parkhaven Drive, and Buckingham' Drive (gated). Figure;l presents the location of the Proposed Projects' sites, Based on information obtained from the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA), the San Francisco 'Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) and Census 2000, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) evaluated.existing transit trip'demand within the study area during daily and peak commute periods. The following are the components of the existing transit demand' addressed in this report: • County Connection(CCCTA transit service)ridership, ■ BART transit ridership, w 2000 Census Journey to Work data,and CCCTA person trips. 516"0 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS'STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2405 Pager - I o: P� a a cs a s� ` In addition, recent traffic and'transportation studies relevant to the Proposed Projects including the Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment Study and Related Actions(2001 and subsequent addenda) and the DoughertyValley Transit Study (2004) provided background information and was resourced for coordination of future transit service in the area. The EIR provided vehicle generation rates to determine projected travel demand for the Proposed Projects. The Dougherty Walley Transit Study was prepared for the proposed Windemere and Gale Ranch developments in nearby Dougherty' Valley. Within the study area,the existing transit usage is related to a rather minimal transit service, The addition of direct service along Camino Tassajara'or a more attractive'fare structure (discounted or'free fares)_would be expected to attract new and greater ridership potentials. Therefore, the maximum; potential transit use is assessed in terms of latent transit demand or unrealized demand. The following sections present a` arket assessment of the potential transit use for the Proposed Projects. 1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1.1.1 Census 2000 Journey To Work Data Based on current Census 2000 data, journey-tri-work patterns for six adjacent census tracts (3451,03,3451.07, 3451.0$,3451.09,3462.02, and 3551.04)are analyzed as part of-this study. At.'.the time of this study, place-of-work data from Census 2000 was available on the County level. As shown in Table 1,;approximately 57 percent of Contra Costa County residents work within Contra Costa County while 22 percent commute to Alameda County and I I percent commute to San Francisco. rir.n.+�r�rr rr...+rr'irr.�r�W���irr��r•rrri : Table 1 Contra Costa County Residents''- Place of Work Place of Work No. of Perseus Percent Contra Costa Coun 254,749 5$% Alameda County 95,93$ 22% San Francisco County - -49,525 11% Santa Clara County 10,145 2% San Mateo County 9;279 2"/a Marin County 6,$03_ 2°1a Solano Coun 6,506 1% Other 8,652 2% Total 1 441,597 140%e Data Source: Cer sus.2000 Summary File 3(SF 3)-Sample Data According to Census 2000 journey-to-work information, the majority of residents of the six adjacent census tracts travel to wank by car, while only a very small percentage use a form of 516990 ALAMOCR EK AND tNTERVENtNG PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT "MARCH 2005 Paget 3 public transit to work: Overall,approximately 93 percent of all commuters travel to work by car. Transit is used by approximately five percent of the total number of commuters. The remaining two percent of commuters categorize motorcycle, bicycle, walk, or other forces of transportation' means as their mode to work. Table'2 presents the mode share for each of the six census tracts. .41YY�11l�IIIYYYYYYYi.Y�Yr - IIIY4111YY1 IYYY��IIiY YIYY�YIIIYIIYY�IYII�tlYI Table 2 Mode'Share'for Site Census Tracts Adjacent to the Proposed Project Sites Census"Tracts Mode of"Travel 3451.03 3451.07 3451.08 3451.09 3462.02, 3551.04 Total Car,truck or van: 91.9% 93.6% 92.2% 93.40f� 90.7% 93.0% 92.5010, Public trans ortation; 6.211/o 4.3% 6.3% 4.8% 7.2% 4.4% 5.4% Motorcycle,bike,walk and other means 1.9% 2.0% 1.5% 1.8% 1 2.1% 2.b% 2.0% Total Commuters not work at home 200.0% 100.0% 100.00/0 100.0% 1 100.0% 100:0% 100.0% Source:Census 2000 Summary pile 3(SF 3)-Sample Data Notes; Appendix A provides additional detail on the share for sub-modes,such as carpool and different transit types. Census 2000 designates three types of rail modes'including: rail,streetcar, subway, and elevated." The BART system can be classified as any of these types of rail and is the major rail system servicing;the San Francisco Bay Area near these census tracts. It should be noted that the Altamont'Commuter Express (ACE), which runs from San .lose to Stockton, also serves nearby Pleasanton. However, according to Census 2000 place-of�-work data, around four percent of Contra Costa residents commute to the counties served exclusively' by the ACE train (Santa Clara and San Joaquin)., Therefore, it was assumed that any transit commuter who identified a type of rail mode would be a BART.patron. Under this assumption, 97 percent of the transit commuters in these tracts tape BART to work'. Appendix A-1 provides details of the mode share to work for the six adjacent census tracts. 1.1.2 Vehicle Occupancy As presented in Table 2, around 93 percent of commuters travel by car from the six adjacent census tracts. Of those that used private vehicles to get to work, approximately 90.5 percent drove alone, while 9.5 percent carpooled. The average number of people per vehicle during the work journey for these census tracts is 1.05. Table 3 presents information on vehicle occupancy. i Based on the percent of public transit commuters who indicated railroad,elevated,streetcar or subway in Census 2000 data. $16990 ALlWiO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS'STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES RNAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page-t-4 Table 3 Average Vehicle Oce pancy for Six Census Tracts Adjacent to Pro`ect Area Total Percentage Total No, of Average# Carpooled -Commuters 1 of Commuters 2 Vehicles persons In 2-person carpool 1,859 7.2% 930 per vehicle In 3-person carpool 404 1.6% 135 In 4-person carpool 75 0.3% 19 In 5-or f,-person earp€iol 35 0.1% 6 In 7-or-more-person carpool 67 11 0.3% 10 Total carpool 2,440 9.5% 1,100 Totat drvve atone23,286 90.5% 23,286 Total car,truck or van 25,726 10.0% 24,386 1.05 Source:Census 2040 Summary File 3(SF'3)-Sample Data Notev (1) Total number of those who drove to work. (2) Percentage of those who drove to work(i.e.,7,2%of driving commuters were'n a 2 person car pool). 1.2 TRANSIT DEMAND The following section presents the estimated transit demand to and from the Proposed Projects' sites. The methodology includes an evaluation of land'uses as well as AM and PM peak and daily transit demand. Information regarding 'intermediate and component figures is also presented'. 1.2.1 Land Use The Proposed Projects would involve construction of two new residential areas including 377 single family residential units and 96 multi-family residential units for the Proposed Intervening Properties Project and 679 single family residential units, 124 multi-family residential units, and 120 senior Dousing units for the Proposed Alamo Creek Project: In addition, a school with a capacity for 740 students and several soccer fields are also proposed. For the purpose of this study, only residential uses were used to determine transit trip demand'. 1,2.2 Calculation of Transit demand The Proposed Project"transit demand was based on both the Contra Costa Countywide travel demand forecasting model developed by OCTA and Census 2000 journey-to-work' information. In order to estimate a transit demand for the Proposed Projects, WSA developed a'methodology based on daily vehicle and person trips generated by each of the projects. WSA first determined the total number of daily vehicle trips generated by both the Proposed Alamo Creels Project and the Proposed Intervening Properties Project (based on the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan''.Amendment Study and Related Actions FFIR)'. From these total daily vehicle trips, daily person trips were estimated by applying the Average 'Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) and the average'vehicle made share,(based on the six adjacent census tracts saa�so ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS'STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page't -5 to the project site as presented in Table 2 and Table 3). As such, approximately;13,338 person trips would be generated daily from both projects (see Table 4). The Proposed Alamo Creek Project would generate approximately 8,600 daily person trips and the Proposed intervening' Properties Project would generate approximately 4,700 daily person trips. Appendix B-1, B-2 and B-3 present details of the number of daily vehicle and person trips calculations including vehicle generation rates from the Camino 'Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment Study ,and Related.fictions FEIR. Table 4 Summary of Daily Person Trips Proposed Alamo Creek Project and the Proposed Intervening properties Project No, No. of Daily % of Vehicle of Vehicle Mode Total No. of Units Trips(l) AV00)t34 Share(3) Person..Trips Pro used Alamo Creek Pra'ect Single,Family Residential 679 6,498 1,05 92.5% 7,376 Multi-FamilyResidential 124 823 1.05 92.5% 935 Senior Housing 120 258 1.05. 92.5% 293 Total 923 7,579 1.05' 92.5% 8,604 Proposed Intervening Pru ernes Project Single Family Residential 377 3,608 1.05 92.5% 46,096 Multi-Fwnily,Residential 96 562 1.05 92.5% 638 'fatal 473 4 170 1.05 92.5% 4,734 Total 1,346 10,448 1.05 92.5% 13,338 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Notes: (1) Source: Basest on vehicle trip generation rates sited in the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment Study and Related'Actions FOR (2) AVC►=Average Vehicle Occupancy. (3)` Source:Census 2000 Summary File 3(SF 3)-Sample Data Based on six census tracts adjacent to the Proposed Project sites. To determine the number of transit trips that would be generated by the Proposed Projects, the percentage of transit rode share(approximately 5.4 percent,see Table 2)was applied to the total number of daily person trips. As such,approximately 716 transit trips would be generated daily by both projects. The.Proposed Alamo Creek Project would generate approximately 462 daily transit trips and the Proposed intervening:Properties Project would generate approximately 254 daily transit trips."Fable 5 presents a summary of total transit trips for each Proposed Project. 51690 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERY15NING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS'STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 1 -6 Table:5 Summary of Total Dally Public Transit Trips Proposed Alamo Creek Project and the ProposedIntervening Properties Project %of Public Total No. of Total No., of Transit.Mode Public Transit Person Tris Share Trips Proposed Alamo Creek Project 8,604 5.37% 462 Proposed Intervening Pro erties Project 41734 5.37% 254 Total 0,338 5.37% 716 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Notes: (1)used on Census 2000 Journey to Work information for the adjacent six census tracts. 1.2.3 'Different Modes of Transit Demand The transit' mode share information from Census 2000 accounts for different forms of public transit including: Bus or trolley bus Streetcar or trolley car a Subway or elevated Railroad • Ferryboat ■ Taxicab For the purposes'of this study, WSA assessed the total number of daily bus trips that would be generated to and from the Proposed Project sites.' In order to estimate these bus 'trips, WSA determined two types of daily transit trips that would be generated by the Proposed Projects: 1. The number of bus trips that would be destined to BART; and 2. The number of bus trips to work. BUS"TRIPS'TO BART To determine the number of bus trips that would be traveling to BART, WSA first assessed the rail mode share of the total number of transit trips (716 public transit trips). Approximately 97 percent(see Appendix A)of the total number of transit trips would travel by rail(around 694 rail trips). From these rail trips, WSA then determined the type of multi-modal trips that would access BART. As discussed in Section '1.1.1, Census 2000 data presents the primary mode of transportation to work, but does not account for multiple modes used for journey'-to-work trips. For example, if traveling on BART is the primary mode of the work trip(i.e. a commuter who drives from home to a BART'station then takes the train to their place of work), Census 2000 would count'their means of transportation to work as a subway'or rail trip. This is particularly'important to note for this study because the three nearest BART stations: to the Proposed Projects' sites (the Dubl n/Pleasantori'Station, the Lafayette Station and the Walnut Creek Station) are located over ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 1 -7 six miles away and would most likely generate another type of trip(i.e bras,car or carpool)at the site. To account for the multi-modal trips, BART riders' mode of access data;was obtained from BART's Station Access Study (1998). This information was used to calculate the percentage of BART riders who use bus or ether types of transit to access either the BART(see .Appendix A- 2). The percentage of projected bus or other types of transit users was calculated as transit trips originating from the Proposed Projects' sites. According to the BART Station Access Study, approximately seven percent of BART riders at the Dublin/Pleasanton, ,walnut Creek and Lafayette 'Stations use another form of transit to access the system. Applying the seven percent factor to the total Proposed Projects' rail transit demand (694 trips), approximately 48 'bus or other transit trips would be generated daily to BART. HUS TRIPS TO WORK Based.on Census 2000 Journey to Work data for the six adjacent census tracts, approximately four percent of the total number of public transit trips are bus trips (see Appendix A-1). As a' result,approximately 29 bus-only trips are generated by the Proposed Projects. Therefore,the number of home-based bus trips generated by the Proposed projects is estimated to be approximately 77 one-way passenger trips per day (about 38 roundtrips). Table 6below presents the total bus demand generated by the Proposed;Projects. Appendix B-4 provides detail calculations of the total transit trips by mode of transit.` Table 6 Daily Transit-Trips Ry Type of Transit Proposed Alamo Creek Project and the Proposed Intervening Properties Project No. of bus No.btis Total Public Trips by trips to trips to Total bus Transit Tris raiIBART PAR 212 work"' demand Proposed Alamo Creek Project 462 448 31 19 50 Proposed intervening Pro es Project 254 1 246 17 10 27 Total 1 716 1 694 48 29 77 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Nates: (l)Assumes 97.0 percent of total transit trips are by rail/BART(Source:Census 2000 journey-to-work) (2);Assumes 7.0 percent of total number of rail/BART riders(Source: BART''s Station Access Study, 1998): (3)Assumes 4.0 percent of the total number of transit trips(Source:Census 2000 joumey-to-work). 1.3 EXISTING'TRANSIT SERVICE While a number of factors affect transit 'ridership, including land use and demographics, the current low levels of transit usage in the area around the Proposed Projects site is related to a limited transit service.' The addition of direct service or'a more attractive fare structure would be expected to attract new and greater ridership potentials. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PRoPEPTU TRANsiT imPRovEMENTS sTUDX WtWUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL.REPORT MARCH 2O05 Page 1 -8 1.3.1 Contra Costa County Connection Service Effective in late December 2004, County'Connection'sRoute 221 service near the Proposed Projects was limited to only serve "'Select-Service" trips in order to decrease annual operating costs. Select Service trips would be in effect only when local public schools are in session. In addition to changing to "select Service" operations, this service also removed its 2:00 PM and 2:35 PM trips. Although Route 221 limited its service near the Proposed Projects, patronage characteristics of Route'221 offered insights into potential patronage at the Proposed Project. Route 221 connected to the north with Alamo Plaza in Alamo and to the south with the San' Ramon Transit Center. Route 221 also served Monte Vista High School, Diablo Road, Camino' Tassajara, and Annabel Lane. Route 221 traveled along Camino Tassajara from Sycamore Valley Road to Tassajara Ranch Drive. The closest,stop to the Proposed Projects' sites was at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Tassajara Ranch Drive. Figure 2 presents a map of the former County Connection Route 221. Ridership information for this,route was obtained from the CCCTA and is presented in Appendix C. Route 221 provided a limited weekday service schedule.,' The first scheduled stop began at 6:30 AM and the last scheduled stop was at 3:15 PM. Midday service was provided from 11:50 AM to 1:00 PM and ran only once per week to accommodate early school dismissals. There was no weekend service. An issue for the ProposedProjects would be whether any significant ridership would occur between the Camino Tassajara northern half of the route and the Crow Canyon southern half of the route. Essentially,' a portion of Route 221 would have been broken in half with one or both halves extended to serve the Proposed Projects.` Route 221 ridership trends by time of day reflected-a high usage by students. The peak number° of passengers served by Route 221 boarded during school dismissal'times (2:59 PM and 3:14 PM). Figure 3 presents the average daily passengers per run. Often the reason afternoon school patronage was higher than the morning patronage was that parents dropped kids at school on the way to work, but were not available (working) to pick them up in the afternoon. A common reason expressed by many non-transit riders is that they need their car to accomplish other' errands daring their commute trip (trip chaining). Monthly ridership trends also reflected the route's heavy usage by students. Approved as part of County. Connection's Winter 2004-05 Service Adjustments, the following changes will be implemented': Discontinuing the 2:00 PM Wednesday-only"Select Service"trip("Select Service", operates only when schools are in session'serving special early dismissal run) • Discontinuing the 2:34 PM trip • Shifting all remaining'Route 221L trips be shifted to"Select Service"trips(only when school is in session) Budgetary needs ultimately led to a more substantial truncation of Route 221 service, including the portion near the Proposed`Projects. 5i6948 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS:STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005: Page 1',_9 C4 t+ i w elk Cc as Was `c� s C� � �'► !� 'x� Yom" t�3 5 x a m Figure 3- Average Daily Ridership per Run on CCCTA Route 221 35 30' 25 c°sa 20 15 °' 10 5 0 JI 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:15 AM 8:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:34 PM ,2:59 PM 3:14 PM Run Start Times Source: Central Contra Costa Transit Authority(CCCTA),2004 County Connection also currently operates.a number of bus routes focused on the Bishop Ranch Transit Center. Potentially one of these bus routes might be extended east on Crow Canyon } Road to Camino,Tassajara and the Proposed Project sites. Routes 960 B and C link Bishop Ranch to the Walnut Creek BART Station and Routes 970 B and C links Bishop Ranch to the DublinlPleasanton BART Station. All of these routes provide direct access to job centers within Bishop Ranch by looping into,individual site driveways. Details of these routings are provided in Appendix C-2". Appendix,ll presents a map of.,Bishop Ranch employment centers presented in. In theory one or more bus trips on these lines could be streamlined and extended to the .Proposed Projects,subject to consultation with the entities sponsoring these routes. 1.3.2. BART Mede of Access To better understand transit trip making patterns in the vicinity of the Proposed Projects, BART mode of access data was evaluated. Since 1991, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has been providing BART with an evaluation model to assess the effectiveness'of 21 different types of access improvements at each of BART's 39 stations. The background data collected for this study includes information on mode of access and residence location for each station In general, the site of the Proposed Projects is on the boundary where residents to the north are -oriented to the 'Walnut Creek'and Lafayette BARS' stations, and residents to the south are oriented to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. However, the BART data indicates that the Dublin Pleasanton BART station has'a larger catchment area. This suggests that residents of the Proposed Projects'would'.be slightly more oriented to the bubiin/Pleasanton BART stations. sI6940, ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Pagel - 11 1.4 MARKET ANALYSIS As describedin in Section 1.23, potential commute bus patronage found the Proposed Projects: would generate about 77 daily passenger trips per day(approximately 50 daily bus trips from the Proposed Alamo CreekProject, and approximately 27 from the Proposed Intervening Properties Project). Available bus service near the study area (Route 221) providesa limited weekday,' service schedule'and is primarily school-related,'rather''than commuter oriented. In addition, only seven percent of BART riders at the Pleasanton, Walnut Creek and Lafayette Stations access the stations by bus. A new bus line or an extension of the existing County Connection service would need to be. supported'by a significant amount of new ridership. The Proposed"Projects' estimated daily transit trips (77 trips) may be insufficient to support these types of transit services. System-wide County Connection averages'about 17 passengers per bus hour of service2 The 77 projected; Proposed 'Project riders could' therefore support about.four bus hours of service on an average weekday." While there is an existing BART transit demand, bus transit in general represents a very small share of the overall journey to work. trips.: Therefore, successful transit service concepts for the Proposed Projects may need to seek broader markets than single destination BART stations or a single Employment Center. In addition,transit access to the other attractions such as the new school, the senior assisted'living'center and ether non-commute markets'could'; also benefit from new bus service. i; 2 Discussions with Bandon Farley,Senior Planner,Central Contra Costa Transit Authority,(925)676-1976. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES'TRANSIT IMPROYEMEPTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005' Page 1 12 Chapter PROMISING MISTNBUS SERVICE STRATEGIES The most effective transit service strategy will directly link the Proposed Project to major' employment destinations and to regional transit hubs. kinkage strategies are described in the following section. Operational strategies and implementation are addressed in Chapter 3. 2.0 COMMUTEMARKET ORIGINS AND DESTINATION Residents' of the Proposed Project are anticipated to have job locations dispersed around the region. The two major transit'access'points nearest to the Propo sed Project are the Walnut Creek BART and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART stations. Both of these stations have frequent seven. days a week 16'hour a day train service.'' The .ACE Station also provides a commute period' service but has a more limited frequency than BART service. The Walnut Creek .BART Station' is located'about'15 miles from. the Proposed Project and the Dublin/Pleasanton Station is about' 10 miles away. 2.1 EMPLOYMENT DESTINATIONS The largest employment concentrations near the Proposed Project are the Bishop Ranch Business Park and the Hacienda Business Park. These two employment centers and the two BART' t stations therefore appear to offer the greatest commuter bus service patronage potential. An l"1OV lane will also help to provide travel time advantages for buses on the Contra Mosta County portion of 1-680 towards the Walnut Creek BART Station. Bishop Ranch is located-about six mites from the Proposed Project and Hacienda Business Park is located about ten miles away. Bishop Ranch currently has about' 25,000 jobs with the capacity,' increase to 38,000 gobs. Downtown Walnut Creek is another center for employment. It is located about 14 miles away from the Proposed Project, 2.1.1 Regional Transit Hubs Residents commuting to Sart Francisco from the Proposed Project will likely use the Walnut Creek BART Station, more than the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. The one way BART fare is less expensive from Walnut Creek($4.00 versus$4.70 for Dublin/Pleasanton)and the train service is more frequent, from Walnut Creek and shorter (35 minutes ' versus 45 minutes for Dublin/Pleasanton). As discussed later,the feeder bus access times to BART would be slightly shorter for the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. 2.1.2 Residential Origins The Proposed Alamo Creek Project and the Proposed Intervening Properties Project sites are located on a total of 609 acres in Contra Costa County. The Proposed Projects would involve construction of two new residential projects located in the area south of Camino Tassajara between Hansen Lane' and .Finley Road. The Proposed Intervening Properties Project would 596998 AtAMO CREEK AND 1176VENiNF,PROPUTIES'-TRANSIT IMPRCFYEMERTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPOPT MARCH 2005 Page 2- 1 include construction of 377 single family residential units and 96 family residential'units. The Pro sed Alamo Creek Project would include construction o 538 ingle family residential units, lti-family residential units,and 120 senior housing um s. I' ddition, a school with a, capaci 740 students and several soccer fields are also propose . 2.2MAR IIMENSIONS Many market factors are important in addition to the origin and destination of a trip. Two key factors of importance in designing public transit service for the :Proposed Project are the commute shift times and the "choice'travel"nature of the Proposed Project commuters. A wide range ,of work shift schedules would be typical for the long distance commutes into San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley employment centers. The most promising capture potentials for public transit are the middle and late morning commutes. The early morning commuters typically experience less traffic congestion and less difficulty finding parking. Commute schedules for Bishop Manch also range widely, with the peaks typically 7:30 am to 8:30 am and 4:30 pm to 5:30' pm. The transportation demand:management,programs at Bishop Ranch have been very effective with some employers offering',extended day four day work weeks,9-80 (nine'' days eighty hours over two week period), flex hours programs and other non typical work schedules. These diverse work shifts indicate the need to offer more than,one'or two peak commute period bus trips. For bus use to be viable,the bus service needs to provide timely and an adequate number of trips to and from work. Lastly,the high income nature of the commuters indicates the need for a high' quality and 'convenient service in order to be successful in this marketplace. 2.3 BUS ACCESS OPTIONS AT THE PROPOSED PROJECTS SITES The local.street system for the Proposed Projects are best characterized as contemporary' subdivision design, with curvilinear streets and cul de sacs common features. Few of the local streets are continuous being designed to disperse and slow site generated traffic. The Intervening Properties circulation plan provides a single access point to Camino Tassajara at Shadow Creek Drive (Street A) Street A is the only site street that runs continuously'the length of the Proposed Project and would be a logical street to run a bus. Alamo Creek's street system would have two access points to Camino Tassajara(Blackhawk Drive East and F Street). A senior care facility, is shown located near the Fi Street access point. Casablanca Street roughly parallels Camino Tassajara' about 700 feet to the south. and connects the Intervening'Properties and the Alamo Creek developments. Casablanca Street would be a logical street to operate a fixed route bus' service. 2.3.1 Flexible Route Option The nature of the Proposed Project Street system suggests that a flexible routing service would, be the most effective means;of catering to the likely market demands. This flexible 'routing option could either be reservation/subscription based or a demand response base route deviation concept. $1499{ ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPEOES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPOT MARCH 2005 Page 2-2 2.31 Fixed Route Option #1 For fixed route service with a terminus at the project site,a routing via the Blackhawk Drive East entry, Casablanca. Road and the Shadow Creek Drive entry appears to be an efficient routing, (Figure 4). The direction of the terminus loop (clockwise or counterclockwise) should favor the exit left turn onto Camino Tassajara that is'signalized. This routing would run the buses mostly on major streets: The suggested fixed routing would provide service' within a quarter mile for around half the residents of Intervening Properties. Most of the other half would be.within a half' mile, with a small portion having'; to walk 3,000 feet to a bus route. At Alamo Creek, approximately 50 percent of the residents would be within a quarter mile, 3,0 percent would be within a Half mile and the remainder would have to walk up to one mile. In general most potential bus riders are willing to walk a quarter mile, and some are willing to-walk one half mile. Very few bus riders are willing to walk more than one half mile, although bicycle access is:: viable for access'distances over a mile. The circuitry of the street and sidewalk system and the high income nature of the market suggest.that the one quarter mile distance is probably the maximum'effective catchment area for fixed route bus service to the Proposed Project. Provision of bike lockers and/or racks at the Shadow Creek Drive school and near the Casablanca`Street and l3lackhawk Drive East intersection in Alamo Creek may help to expand coverage. 2.3.3 Fixed Route Option #2 Another option which may provide better local access would operate,the.buses into Intervening Properties via the Shadow Creek Driveway and then continue along Casablanca Street, A,Street,' Camino Tassa}ara, and P Street extending to the senior care facility then looping back to Casablanca Street (see Figure 5). For this route option, a more logical ''terminus would be located at the senior care facility to serve' those with mobility limitations. This fixed routing would provide service within'a quarter to half mile for 50 percent of the residents of Intervening: Properties, within a half mile for 30 percent of residents and the remainder would have to walk up to one mile. At Alamo Creek, approximately 60 percent of the residents would be within a quarter mile, 30 percent would be within a'half mile and the remainder would have to walk up to one mile.! For Alamo Creek residents,this option'would extend 0.13 of a utile further south and 0.33 miles further north than option#1. 2.3.4 Fixed Route Option #3 Rather than terminating at the senior care facility in option #2 a third routing option would be continue the route further south along A Street and terminate the at the Alamo Creels swim'center (see Figure 6). This fixed routing would'provide service within a quarter to half mile for 50 percent of residents within the Intervening''Properties. Approximately 30 percent of Intervening Properties residents would be within a half mile and 20 percent would be up to one mile of the service. This option would also provide service less than a.quarter mile for 90 percent Alamo Creek residents with a terminus loop near the center of the Alamo Creek project site. The: remainder would have to walk within a half mile.This option would provide the best coverage to ' Alamo Creek at nearly the (same cost as options I#1 and #2 (shown in Figures d and 5). Depending on the type of bus to be operated, routing of this option on the local streets may not prove acceptable to the local community. St'�994 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES-TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005' Paget-3 ti s9 �` t3 '� . ... io 4 ^4Y C .3 if ui cJ ut u+ 0 a � t x 7� � V �r �1+ r - r'a'ys Z OA G s rz Elm �' z 10 ft Z in 0 2 LU w t�eg oc u, z ujmil �y u Zlu Ig lu La a � a Y �t Z t� ti 19O Z ;n w 3 2.3.5 Summary The best strategy for collecting commuters within the Proposed Project will be influenced by phasing of development and occupancy, the size of transit vehicles and manifesting preferences of residents and employees who work at on-site facilities. Within the Intervening Properties' portion of the Proposed Project, the routing';along Casablanca Street seems clear. Deviations off of Casablanca Street would not be attractive to riders from Alamo Creek and the net ridership would probably prove to be lower for the more circuitous routing. The.overall best geographic service concept within Alamo Creek. is Option #3 with a terminal near the swim center. Option #3 provides a balanced and simple to use local coverage service concept for.collecting Alamo; Creek residents.'' The circuitous nature of the terminus routing typically would not be a problem, since it inconveniences virtually no through riders. It should be noted that'Option #3 provides' better coverage for Alamo Creek than for the Intervening Properties. 2.4 POTENTIAL SERVICE LINKAGE STRATEGIES Five alternativeservice linkage strategies were defined: * Strategy A -Walnut Creek BART Linkage; _ Strategy B -Dublin/Pleasanton BART, * Strategy C-Walnut Creek via Bishop Ranch, Strategy D =Hacienda Business Park via Bishop Ranch and Dublin/Pleasanton BART; and Strategy E- Bishop Ranch 2.4..1 Strategy A--Walnut Creek As shown in Figure 7 this service would start at the Proposed Project and travel to the Walnut Creek BART Station via one of three paths'. Path I would use Camino Tassajara to access I-680. Path 2 would use Sycamore 'Valley'Road to access 1-680 and''Path 3 would use Crow Canyon Road and Dorris Canyon Road to access I-680. I-680'has HOV lanes north to Walnut Creek, which buses could use;to bypass congestion. Running times between the Proposed Project and the Walnut Creek BART station are estimated as follows. • Path t-40 minutes • Path 2-42 minutes Path'3-48 minutes With the improved access to the Bishop Ranch employment area, Path 3 appears to be the most attractive'of the three options. It would add eight minutes to the most direct travel time'to the Walnut Creek.BART Station. Path 3 would also provide commute options for BART patrons as well as Walnut Creek' and Bishop Ranch employees. By maximizing the potential commute market,Path 3 would likely attract the most patronage. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND;INTERVENING F10PERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATESS FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 2'-7 ALAMO CR9EK&INTERVENING PItOPEttT ES TRANSITIMPROVEMENT STUDY 24 f,—Wglnut Greets BART Legend �+ Alternative A- l ..... Alternative A:-2 :.. Alternative A-3 Bishop Ranch Project site Dubin/ Pleasanton Hacienda ll BART Business Stoneridge Mo .Pork NOKM NOT To SCAtE � $ +r .Yr+`. amss figure 7 *Jra res ALTERNATIVE A +mitI WALNUT CREEK BART Wilbur 5n�ith AssociaEes 516"OWrtFtvnnvts-�tori 11oa 2.4.2 Strategy B—Dublin./Pleasanton,BART Strategy As shown in Figure 8, the most direct path for this linkage is via Camino Tassajara to Dublin Boulevard. The routing would serve a portion of Hacienda Business Park on its way to BART. It is,preliminarily envisioned to travel via Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive and Owens Drive. Should a resident(s) of the Proposed Project request a more, convenient routing through the Hacienda Business Park,this preliminary routing could be tailored to be more responsive to their -needs. A one-way trip time would be estimated at approximately 30 minutes. 2.4.3 Strategy C—Walnut Creek BART via Bishop Ranch Figure 9 presents the routing for this alternative, It would Serve Bishop Ranch and the Walnut CreekBART Station via Crow Canyon Road, Camino Ramon, Bollinger Canyon Road and I- 680. The one way running time for this route is estimated to be 56 minutes. This would be eight minutes more than Strategy A's Path 3 service via Norris Canyon Road. An additional stop added at the Bishop Ranch Transit Center would,"add on another three, minutes of travel time. The Transit Center stop would be desirable for Bishop Ranch riders, but would be an inconvenience to riders traveling to the Walnut Creek BART Station, 2.4.4 Strategy D—Hacienda Business Park via Bishop Ranch and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station Figure 10 describes the routing for this alternative. Buses would travel to the Hacienda Business Park via Camino Tassajara, Crow Canyon Road, Camino Ramon, Bollinger Canyon, 1-680, 1- 580, Hopyard Road, Owens Drive and terminate in a local service loop within Hacienda 'Business Park. HOV lanes are not planned for 1-680 in Alameda County, so all the freeway travel Would be in congested traffic. The one way running time for this route is estimated to be 46 ininutes. 2.4.5 Strategy E —Bishop Ranch Shuttle As shown in Figure 11, this rou-te would link the Proposed Project to Bishop Ranch,via, Crow Canyon Road. The one way running time for this service is estimated to be 30 minutes. Based on one way travel time of 30 minutes,hourly headways could be provided by one bus. 514990 ALAMO CREEK AND 14TRVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 2-9 ALAMO CREEK& INTERVENING PROPER139S TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STUDY 24 'F"�~--.._—Minot Creek BART Legend .....r Alternative 8 �r w t Cmw C"U Bishop Ranch, Project Site Dublin/ Pleasanton Hacienda Stoneridge Mall BART Business Park 68 NORTH NOT TO SCALE 5 .r rraar.�a9HOMENS Figure 8 rir 1>�ra rpt rr�rn&vmmALTERNATIVE B Wilbur'Sriiith Associates OU81.IW LEASAIdIt?N BART 51 G490WtTt RN TWES-101/1104 .... ...... ALAMO MEEK,&INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STUDY Wahut Creek BART Legend Alternative C Bishop Ranch Project Site Dubfinl Pleasanton Hacienda Stoneridge MoBART Business Mott Park NORrm NOT TO SCALE Figure 9 ALTERNATIVE C rim ir BISHOP RANCH -WALNUT CREEKBART Wilbur SmithAmciates 5)6990\ALTERNA'"VES--10/11/04 Ociates .......... ALAMO CRREK tNTERVENiNCG PROPERTIES TRANSITIMPROVEMENT STUDY 24 riF ~- WbIbut Creek BART Legend' Alternative D Cmw C ; Bishop Ranch Project Site Dublin] Pleasanton Hacienda 5t0nerldge Mall BART Business :Park NORTH 140T TCt'-::SCALE r r�r►��. Figure 10 /ttrt� 1�t�rrrs � ALTERNATIVE d BISHOP RANCH' DUBUWPLEASANTON BART-HACIENDA Wilbur Smith Associateg 51 assotaiTEANAnvtS-.10/1 1/04 ALAMO CRVf _a IWIERVININ011-tOPERl"O TRAN,SIT,IMPROVEMENT STUDY 4 04 et,—Wakutt Creek BART Legend Alternative E try flishop Ranch Site Pleasanton Hacienda Stoneridge Matt BART Business Pa.+ 65 to- NORTH ire NOT TO SCALE Figure 11 IS= ALURNATIVE f WHOP PANCH Wilber Smith Associates Ocil t S1,699ouALTERWTIVES-10111104 ............. 2.4.$ Summary Per review of each of the five base alternative service linkage strategies, Strategy A-3 (oriented' to 'Walnut Creek BART)appears to present the most promising and well balanced service. This .strategy would be able to provide some service to Bishop Ranch,effectively serve Walnut Creek BART patrons and would add only eight minutes to the shortesttravel,path. In addition,Strategy A-3 provides a non-stop service to Walnut Creek for maximum use of the median HOV lanes along I-580. In contrast, Strategy C (Walnut Creek BART via Bishop Ranch) would better serve Walnut Creek, but it would also add a total of 15 minutes to the shortest travel path. The added travel: time would not be very effective at capturing high income commuters. Strategy D (Dublin BART/Hacienda Business Park via Bishop Ranch) would be the most promising linkage;to the south as it would serve Bishop Ranch, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and-some of Hacienda'Business Park However, Strategy D would have high one-way travel times(around 50 minutes) and therefore not effectively serve Dublin/Pleasanton BART. Strategy B (Dublin BART via Camino Tassajara and Hacienda Business Park) would provide the best one-way travel time(around 30 minutes), but the potential backhaul or opportunity to serve non-commute' direction passengers would be poor.' Strategy E (Bishop Ranch shuttle with no BART linkage)'' would also have a promising one-way travel time;(around 30 minutes), but would not serve any, of the BART station commuters. In addition, with ample free parking at Bishop;Ranch, a new transit service would not be sufficiently supported from the proposed Projects. Therefore, Strategy A-3 (oriented to Walnut Creek BART) offers the most effective service for the Proposed Projects. 'fable 7 on the following page presents an overview comparison of the different strategy options. Table 7 identifies for each of seven service''option strategies: + One-way bus running times traveling between the Project Site and either the Walnut Creek or the Dublin BART station, Total number of weekday peak direction bus trips (half morning inbound trips and half Afternoon outbound trips); • Number of vehicles required to provide the peak period service frequencies (excludes provision of spare back up vehicles), + Qualitative assessments of linkages to key commute destinations;and r Qualitative assessments of potential to serve reverse direction peak commute demands destined from non Project residential areas to Bishop Ranch or Hacienda Business Park. sx bssra AI AMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSITIMPROVEMENTS tT5',STUDY WIL$UR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 2-14 C[ o � g + c° ce JS r4 42 a+ �. 0 C O W A 0 I; u :3 u CL m ry ry cv C4zo ev N to C9 6G a. o & yr -00 00 00 00 W U AF � c � r N W M in i.. ta kn .4 cn 0. .G1 vs to ate. rs2 1 x as •- v °o c u� u) t7 �C d ► U A w 0 m a' r°s t a ter IMPLEMENTATION -OPTIONS This Chapter explores the substantial.benefits of a new service or extension of existing services' for the Proposed Projects and how.best to implement the Walnut Creek service' linkage (via' Camino Tassajara/Sycamore) or the Dublin/Pleasanton service linkage (via Dougherty/Camino Tassajara). 3.0 NEVA SERVICE For the new service, Strategy A-3 (service to Walnut Creek BART via Crow Canyon and Norris Canyon Roads)offered the most premising and well balanced service of all the service options. In addition, Strategy D (service'to Dublin Pleasanton BART via Bishop Ranch) was the most promising linkage that would serve Bishop Ranch, the DublinfPleasantonBART Station and some of Hacienda Business Park despite the long one-way trip time. 3.0.1 Walnut Creek BART Service (Strategy A-3) The most,promising service plan appears to be a fixed' route service originating at the Alamo Creek swim center and running to Bishop Ranch via Camino Tassajara, Crow Canyon Road and Norris Canyon Road. The service would continue pass Bishop Ranch to the Walnut Creek' BART Station via 1-680's hi0V lane facilities. Travel times are estimated to be as follows; ` To Bishop Ranch 25 minutes from Alamo-Creek ■ ' 21 minutes from Intervening Properties To Walnut Creek BART 48 minutes from Alamo Creek • 44 minutes from Intervening Properties To San Francisco Montgomery BART Station via BART ■ 88 minutes from Alamo Creek ■ 84 minutes from Intervening Properties Two buses would be required to provide viable service,with each bus making two peak direction trips during both the 'AM and PM weekday commute peaks. Tables 8 and 9 describe the proposed'schedule. In the off-peak direction the buses could either run empty in the reverse direction or earn revenue with backhaul commuters between Bishop Ranch and BART. This issue will be discussed later in this section. The last two trips in the morning may also serve journey to school travel from the Proposed'Projects., s,s�vo ALAMO CRtfK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL.REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3-1 .......... ... .... Table 8 Walnut Creek BART Service Morning Schedule Weekday AM Commute Peak Service Area BUS#1 BUS#2 BUS#1 BUS#2 Alamo Creek 6-00 AM 6:30 AM 7:20 Am 8:00 AM Intervening Properties 6:04 AM 6:34 AM 7:24 AM 8:04 AM Bishop Ranch 6:20 AM 6:55 AM 7:45 AM 8:25 AM Walnut Creek BART 6:40,AM 7:20 AM 8:10 AM 8:50 AM 7:20 AM 8- AM 8-50 AM 9:30 AM San Francisco via BART 00 Source-Wilbur Smith Associates rable 9 Walnut Creek BART Service Evening Schedule Weekday Commute Peak Service Area BUS#1 BUS#2 BUS#1 BUS#2 Alamo Creek 4:10'PM '5:00TM 5:50 PM 6:30 PM Intervenin Properties4.50 PM 5:40 PM 6:30 PM 7:10 PM Bishop Ranch 5:15 PM 6-05 PM 6-55 PM 7-35 PM W -alnut Creek BART 5:36 PM 6.26 PM 7:16 PM 7:56 PM San Francisco via BART 5:40 PM 6:30 PM 7:20 PM 8:00-PM Source:Wilbur Smith Associates This evening service schedule would also provide the opportunity to earn revenue in the off peak direction serving Bishop Ranch to BART passengers. 3.0.2 Dublin/Pleasanton BART and Hacienda Business Park Service The service strategy of operating buses to Bishop Ranch to 'Dublin/Pleasanton BART and to Hacienda Business Park is suggested to operate with t<vo buses according to the schedule shown in Tables 10 and 11. Table 10 Dublin/PleasantonMorning BART Service Weekday AM Commute Peak Service Area BUS#1 BUS#2 BUS#1 BUS#2, Alamo Creek 6:14 AM 6.44 AM 7:50 AM 8:20 AM Intervening Properties 6:18 AM 6:49 AM 7:54 AM 8:24 AM :Bishop Ranch 6:44 AM 7:14 AM 8:18 AM 8:50 AM, Dublin BART 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:35 AM 9:06 AM Hacienda Business Park 7:05 AM 7:35 AM 8:50 AM 9:11 AM San Francisco via BAR Ts 7:50 AM _8:20 AM 9:25 AM 9:56 AM Source.Wilbur Smith Associates ALkMOCREEK Xt-4DiNT-EkV-ENINr.PiO-FEiT-IES-TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY, WILBUR SM1711ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Patio 3-2 l Table 11 Dublin/Pleasanton Evening BART Service Weekday PM Commute Peak Service Area BUS#1 BUS#2 BUS#1 BUS#2 Alamo Creek 4:OS PM 5:65 PM 5:50 PM 6:40 PM Intervening Pro 'ernes 4:51 PM 5:51 PM 6:36 PM 1:26 PM Bishop Ranch 4:55 PM 5.55 PM 6:40 PM 7:30 PM Dublin"BART 5:20!PM 1 6:20 Plot 7:45 PM 7:55 PM Hacienda Business Parr 5.41 PM 6:41 PM 7:26 PM ' 8:16 PM San Francisco via BARTs 5:45 PM 6:45 PM 1:30 PM 8:20 PM Source:Wilbur Smith Associates The 46 minute travel time to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and the 51 minute travel time to the Hacienda Business Park would not likely be accepted by the commute market. The drive time by car via Camino Tassajara south to BART is much more:direct. 3,0.3 Summary Rather than disperse investment of limited resources, it would be best to concentrate them into a high quality viable service suited to the high income "choice" nature of the Proposed Project's' commutemarket. The most;promising new service appears to be the Bishop R.anchtalnut Creek:BART service concept: } 3.1 MODIFICATION OF CURRENT SERVICE' The Walnut Creek BART service plan could be implemented by mollifying;County Connection Bishop Ranch service Route 960. Modification of Route 970 service could possibly connect the Proposed Project to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. It also should be nested that the Walnut geek BART service plan could implemented. by splitting the existing. County Connection Route 221L (presented in Appendix C-1)but it is an unlikely option since the.route has been truncated 3.1.1 Route 960 County Connection operates two variations of this bus route. 'Version B operates between the Walnut Creek BART Station and Bollinger Canyon Road on 1-680,making a stop at the Danville Park and Ride Lot along the way. Bishop Ranch Route 960B'makes a large counter-cloe. kwise loop serving-employment employment centers as far north as Dorris Canyon Road. 'Version C operates similarly, with the exception of entering Bishop Ranch at Crow Canyon Read, following a long zigzag path and then exits Bishop Ranch at Bollinger Canyon Road for its northbound trip on I- 680, In general, the B route focuses on the serving southern part of Bishop Ranch and the C route Focuses on the northern portion. During the .morning' commute period, Route 960B northbound service begins at 6:50 am and continues until 9:42 am, providing five trips. Route 9600 northbound service for the morning commute,peals begins at 1:10 am and ends at 8:11 am providing three bus trips. Therefore, together these two routes provide 5:00 am peak'period STOW ALAMO CREED AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS'STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3'-3 northbound trips to Walnut Creek BART. Route 960C orientationto the northern portion of Bishop Ranch lends itself more readily to integration with service to the Proposed Project. The difficulty of integrating needs of the Proposed Project with Route 9600 is that the 9600 buses would run empty ftof-n Bishop Ranch-to the Proposed Project in the morning in order to get in position for service. Similarly, during the afternoon buses would run empty from the Proposed Project tQ Bishop Ranch in order to get in position for service. The most promising opportunities would be to start the first northbound 9600 bus trip from the Proposed Project rather than its current start at the Danville Park and Ride,Lot. The first bus trip begins very early leaving the Danville Park and Ride Lot at 630 am. During the evening peak, the,last trip of 964E may possibly be extended to the Proposed Project. None of these options would provide the quality of service at the desired commute times for the Proposed Project. 3.1.2 Route 970 Similar to Route 960, County Connection operates two versions of this route. Versio n B links Bishop Ranch to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station using a counter-clockwise loop to collect commuters Within Bishop Ranch. Version C employs a clockwise loop within bishop Ranch and more directly serves the northern portion of Bishop Ranch. It would be difficult to restructure either of these two bus routes for an extension to the Proposed Project. 3.1.3 Summary Rather than modify current service, the best approach would be to design a new I service that could Also attract Bishop Ranch to Walnut Creek BART passengers and therefore help attract fare revenue and perhaps subsidy support. 3.2 VEHICLE NEEDS Large buses are typically opposed by residential neighborhoods. They are often perceived as dominating the streets and having very low passenger occupancies. However, large buses are more able to accommodate peak passenger demands, particularly those associated with schools. Large buses also offer a more comfortable smooth ride for passengers. Most passengers prefer the larger more comfortable buses and most neighborhoods prefer the smaller buses. The commute ridership from the Proposed Project is unlikely to.require a full size 40 foot transit bus or over-the-wr6ad.intercity coach. For service start up,a medium size minibus or 36 foot coach is suggested (depending on the operator's fleet resources). Operating cost savings are typically not very significant between large buses and shuttle'.buses. Labor costs associated with the driver are essentially the same for the two different size vehicles. .The County Connection paratransit vehicles might tend themselves to the needs of the Proposed, Project. Some communities deploy small paratransit vehicles for speciatized commute markets :in the early z morning and evening hours, when peak.demands for paratansit services tend to be minimal. These, vehicle's are not designed for comfortable long distance freeway travel and therefore might not gain market acceptance. The paratransit vehicles Also often have a stigma 516990 N OCIATIE-S ALAMO CREEK AND tWERVWING FROR OS TRANSIT IMPROVEM e Ts STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASS FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3-4 attached to them, which is unattractive to high income commuters. Therefore, use of paratransit vans is not recommended for the Proposed Project transit service. In addition to size of vehicle, the comfort level is also important fora choice ridership market. Desirably', the vehicles should be spacious, and to the extent possible have similar features as airport shuttle vehicles in terms of passenger comfort. A total of two vehicles would be required for the suggested service and a third would be needed as,a back-up vehicle. 3.3 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Contra Costa.County as the administrator of funds to support transit service to the Proposed Projects would, have two basic options for operations management. It could negotiate an agreement with CCCTA tooperatethe service or it could retain a private contractor for services. Contracting with neighboring public transit operators (LAVTA and Tri- Delta Transit) is not considered a viable option, as these agencies ,have limited private contracting abilities, particularly outside their own prescribed districts. It is important to note that it is envisioned to have an oversight committee which would include representatives from the Proposed Projects sponsors, local jurisdictions,,and any other funding partners to assist,in the management and funding of the new transit system. 3.3.1 County Connection As reflected by the recent reduction in Route 221 service, the market strength in the Camino Tassajara corridor is not currently sufficient to sustain regularly funded public transit services. This can change as development occurs and the market becomes stronger or as more funding becomes available to support marginal services. The Proposed Project will add population (and market) and will also add sales tax revenue for County Connection. At full occupancy 3,900 residents are anticipaV-,d., The most recent data for County Connection indicates that a population this size would provide funding to support about 015 buses or 2,300 annual bus hours of service, based on district-wide averages, Basically, the Proposed Project leads to revenue increases for County Connection to add 0.085 peak period.huses providing 2,300 annual bus1burs of service (nine bus hours of service per average. weekday). However, minimum performance standards must be met for the service to be provided (boardings per vehicle hour etc.). It is unlikely that these 'Minimums will be met by trips,generated by the Proposed Project. It should be noted that the suggested service strategy,would also serve travel demands from the Walnut Creek BART to Bishop Ranch and therefore may meet minimum thresholds for County Connection service. Appendix E describes County Connection's adopted policy for service,expansion. The policy with respect to commute service improvements is as follows: "Priority will be given to fully paid costs including capital. Second priority to fully paid operating and lost opportunity cost, third priority to fully paid operating cost, and fourth X05Z6REEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 priority to partially paid operating cost only, if it is determined by the Board that the overall community benefit justifies an investment of CCCTA funds. Current operating costs for County Connection fixed route services using fall size buses are slightly more than $80 per vehicle hour of service. Operating costs for the proposed-smaller minibus vehicles should be slightly less than for1he full size buses. $80 per bus hour for minibus operation is suggested for budgeting purposes. 33.2 Private Contractor The new service could be contracted with private bus operators. A number of taxi and airport shuttle operators provide services in the vicinity of the Proposed Project as well as some general bus service-contractors. Typically,the costs are lower contracting with private operators as well the sponsor has complete control over policies and service. Costs for private contractor provided services generally run in the range'of $40 to $50 per hour. However, 'subsidies for vehicle. acquisitions or operating costs are not available for privately contracted services, separate from public transit sponsored services. In addition,privately contracted services typically do not have the backup buses and drivers necessary to provide reliable service, 3.4 ADA COMPLIANCE The Americans with Disabilities Acf(ADA)requires that fully accessible door to door service be .provided to I complement regular fixed.route services. An exemption to,this requirement is provided for commuter services. The Senior Care Center in Alamo Creek would likely be served by County Connection's paratransit services. The costs of these paratransit services would likely be covered by the increase sales taxes gerietated by the Proposed,Project's residents. County Connections obligations are strictly limited to providing paratransit, services to areasit serves with fixed. route bus services; however, since they will be receiving added sales tax revenue generated by Proposed Project residents they,would also be pmssed,to extend,paratransit services even if fixed route services are not extended to cover the ProposedProject. �3.5 PHASED IMPLEMENTATION Key features of the implementation-plan include: Service and Management Phasing Strategy, * Marketing and Fare Plans;and * Resource Investment Plan. 3.5.1 Service/Management Phasing Strategy Particularly ditring,the early stages of project occupancy, the transit market for the Proposed Project is likely to be limited. Therefore, it is suggested that a minimal initial service should be implemented with the opportunity to expand to meet manifesting needs. , An incremental implementation approach is recommended for consideration. Full, implementation early in the development of the Proposed Project would likrly,be deemed a transit service failure as the 510990 A.AMO'tREEK AND INTERVENRG POPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3-6 buses would have very low usage, ;,This could lead to abandonment of the service before the market has ripened. The details of the phasing plan need to be coordinated with phased construction and occupancy of the Proposed Project. A three phase process is recommended. 1. Start-up service implemented as either vanprool or maxi-taxi service, depending on the ability to find a vanpool'driver; Z. Project shuttle bus service operated by private'contractor;and 3. Long term integration into County Connection service network. A shuttle operation will not be cast effective in the early years)of project occupancy. Vehicles would operate virtually empty. Thus, the first phase rideshare ef'f'orts should focus on finding a, vanpoollshuttlepool driver and subsidizing the scheduled vanpoolfshuttlepool service (probably directly to BART station, but perhaps with Bishop Ranch stop). The service could'utilize the I 680 HOV lanes and BART HOV parking preferences. The service is envisioned to"operate on a regular schedule'with both subscription and checkpoint type stops at key points along the route (somewhat similar to point deviation or flex-route;,operations). This service should commence as early as possible (assessed at no later than occupancy;of 300'' units). Depending on ridership success of this service and survey of riders, a regular shuttle bus service should be established (estimated as occupancy of 600 units). If service is deferred until' full occupancy of the Proposed Proiects, travel habits will become established. Experience has shown that it is more difficult to change established travel habits than to attract new residents when they move-in. if a driver for the vanpoollsuttlepool cannot be found, contract service with a local taxi/van operator is recommended for this initial service. The recommended shuttle operation consists of the Walnut Creek via Bishop Ranch service from the Proposed Project site. It schedule is described in Tables.3 and 4. Essentially four trips'would be provided during both commute peak periods in the peak direction of-travel. Shuttle stops are proposed as follows. Alamo Creek Development • Swim Center. E Street at southwest corner of elementary school 4 A'Street'intersection with l~ Street Intervening Properties Development • Casablanca Street intersection with A Street Bishop Ranch • Norris Canyon Road near Crow Canyon Road 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROYEMEN7S'STU13Y WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2065' Page 3'-7 Walnut Creek DART If funding support can be obtained from County Connection. or Bishop Ranch other shuttle stops might be added as follows: 0 Knolls Creek Road and,Casablanca(Wendt Development); * Camino Tassajara middle school; Crow Canyon Road near Camino Tassajara; • Crow Canyon near Dougherty Road; Crow Canyon,near Canyon Crest Drive;and • Camino Ramon near Crow Canyon Road. ADA compliant passenger loading areas (minimum 9 foot deep pad for loading wheelchairs) with small shelters would be provided for the morning direction passenger loading bus stops. Shelters are only needed for waiting passengers and not for alighting passengers, but ADA compliant-paved areas are needed for both directions of travel. If funding support cannot be obtained from Bishop Ranch or County Connection, the Proposed Project shuttle could operate with Bishop Ranch as a stop option. In the morning if no riders indicate a destination at Bishop Ranch the shuttle could directly to Walnut Creek BART. A lower cost transit service option would be to provide three peak direction bus trips during the morning and afternoon commute periods rather than the proposed four trip service. This reduced investment might lend itself to the transition between the.vanpool (300-to 600 dwelling unit project occupancy)to the 1,000 to 1,400 Project Build-out dwelling unit-occupancy. 3.6 MARKETING AND FARE PLAN The service is envisioned as free fare for residents of the Proposed Project. If additional revenue could be achieved by opening the service to employees of Bishop Ranch this opportunity should'be explored. Presently the Bishop'Ranch Transportation Centre offers free rides on County Connection Routes 960(Walnut Creek BART) and 970 (Dublin/Pleasanton BART). ,ft is plausible that Bishop Ranch might also subsidize the,Proposed Project's backbaul 'reverse direction commute between-Walnut Creek and Bishop Ranch), which coincides with the Bishop Ranch peak commute direction. Itis also plausible that Bishop Ranch might provide a per rider equal subsidy for riders from the Camino Tassajara/Crow Canyon travel corridor commuting to Bishop Ranch- Fare identity cards would be needed to confirm employment at Bishop Ranch. ,Open. ridership from non Bishop Ranch non Proposed Project residents would be difficult to manage and-Ithereforeis not recommended. The minimal fares-potentially derived from non- eligible riders would. be small and not worth the problems related to fare collection and management. As long as capacity permits on the vehicles, minor abuse,of eligibility should not -be, enforced., This policy of accommodation would help the corridor minimize use of private vehicles and therefore achieve one of the key objectives of providing the Proposed Project transit PETT _M_Mo WILBUR SMITH ASSFC-RiES ALAMO CREEK AND rNTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT ROVE EWS Y FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3-8 service.I Should these demands prove to be substantial, County Connection would likely extend service to the corridor. If the,service is integrated with the regular County Connection service or is operated under contract by County Connection, TransLink and regular fare collection and administration could collect fares from non-project residents.' The marketing plan consists of four elements. The shuttle vehicles are recommended to have the Project's name painted on it or some brand identity tied to the Proposed Project(e.g. 'Hopper"'). The vehicle also should remind riders that the service is free fare. The bus stops would be visible reminders of the service and would include service information, desirably including real time schedule information. A welcome-wagon program is recommended that includes information on the shuttle service. Lastly, the residents are'likely to be very linked with the internet and a neighborhood oriented website-is recommended to describe the transit service along with other rideshare opportunities. An annual budget of$4,000 is proposed to develop, print and distribute service information to,residents-and to coordinate with welcome-wagon and other marketing opportunities. 3.7 RESOURCE INVESTMENT PLAN Costs for public transit services are typically categorized into reoccurring annual operating costs and into capital costs. 3.7.1 Annual Operating Costs The ultimate service involving two shuttle buses operating 250 week&ys,on average annually for 8 hours each daily would total 4,000 annual vehicle hours of operation. At an estimated cost of $410g-pex-Vehicle hour of operation for privately contracted shuttle service this would total 2 rnnu At $80 per vehicle hour for County Connection service the cost would be OZa"nnually.* f For the start-up vanpool/shuttlepo, ol service, the costs would involve coverage o_ insurance, fuel, communications and other operating costs as well as for three vanpool vehicles. To encourage volunteer drivers the coverage of the costs should be generous, but not so high as to be considered income. Lease of vanpool vehicles is estimated to amount to $1,300 per month and, -cover insurance, maintenance and depreciation. Another $500 per month is estimated for each vehicle to cover fuel and miscellaneous costs. Drivers would be allowed to use the van on weekends.as extra incentive. If volunteer drivers cannot be found for the vanpools, contract services with taxi van service are recommended. Table 12 summarizes the annual operating costs for the seven service strategy options as well as for the suggested start-up vanpool service. It shows the costs for six daily bus trips and,for eight daily bus trips. Option A-3, the recommended option, is estimated to cost approximately $320,000 annually to operate. An annual budget of $4,000 is suggested for marketing. . The marketing budget would cover the development, printing and distribution of service inf6rination to all residents on an annual basis as well as marketing coordination with welcome-Wagon and other programs. 516990 EWOUEEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SWtH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3-4 oa 4t>41� 0a kn as en �c> 4n k> a> 1t>un cs -,t v �raC� t�riC1 (n NNCht (1 „� . caca' c> cacs c. cac> 0c, c> o ... C) C) 40c� c> c c> ea � +� � � rsCSc� c> c� � ra --Y c� c, � 3 Ejr� 0 0c> C> a> C> oc> � 8 r, 46 , 0 oma' CsC> c> C> C� C> C c Cc C> C) i ., C7 Ca C> c) C> q c> C> c� c C� c c� .w r+Y pct rli m m m N m cn "1 m on m to ;, siLJ " ctrlrnr+•> cwscwxc� cnc+t Cw 04 °" ami d CPL. >4Z 4M c U � 0 04 In c� 8c> c> c> 0c> C) C� C> c C5C> 0 (3c> o ... t er et et" ct • " t �r 4 4 4 v C. c' " CL t~ uj Cc> CnDcocC <Z> ctl0ccoC> cC> C> oa� u C> o Q .- 8 cc ac> cccCo w env c0a 6 Cs cs Cti c> C> C c5 C> civ t �,oN 4tN "It rptTt 'co �} rt m rpt rn r t cn c*t m r"t c*) cwt Z Id C> � op � cGQ0uu 3.7.2 Capital Costs Costs associated with establishing the recommended the transit service would include the costs of the vehicles. Three shuttle vehicles are recommended at an average cost-of $70,000 and average life of six years. For start up, service, three vans should suffice for the van service. These vans are estimated to cost about$35,000 apiece, but often are leased for about$1,300 per month. If contracted out,the vehicles would be included in the overall contract and would not be a I separate cost item. Table 12 describes the annualized vehicle costs for the service options, 3.7.3 Funding Public transit subsidy funds for operating costs and for capital cost's are fully used and would not be,available for,the Proposed Project service unless it were operated, as part of County Connection's regular public transit service. Some funding participation might be possible from Bishop Ranch. It is doubtful that residents would want advertising on the buses or shelters and it is unlikely that this advertising would'yield significant revenue. 3.8 POTENTIAL BENEFITS The recommended service strategy is ultimately forecast 16 serve 30 to 40 passenger trips during each peak commute period(between 60 and 90 riders per day) on an average weekday. Trips to BART are estimated to account for 75 percent of these total tripswith the remainder oriented to Bishop Ranch. Approximately two thirds.(20 to 30 passengers) are estimated to ride during the peak commute hour in each peak period. On an annual basis the total patronage is estimated to be 17,500. Based on 4,000 vehicle hours of annual service, this translates to 4.4 passenger boardings per vehicle hour. County Connection's system-wide average is about 17 passengers per vehicle hour of service. The higher productivity is achieve4 in more densely developed portions of the service area andincludes school and other trip purposes. Productivity of the Proposed Project's transit service would also increase if employees traveling to Bishop Ranch would use the reverse peak direction bus trips for their commute heeds. At an annual cost of$320,000, the eight bus trip (four in the morning and four in the afternoon) would translate to an average. subsidy cost per passenger trip cif$16.62. The lower investment six bus trip service strategy would result in an average subsidy per passenger trip of$12.47(if it could attract the same ridership level as the eight bus trip strategy), The average subsidy cost per I passenger I boarding on County Connection bug service currently is about $3.20. 'Table 12 summarizes total annual operating and capital costs for the service options. The total annual subsidy covering capital and operatingoosts is estimated to be$357,000 for the eight bus trip option and $277,000 for the six bus trip option. At the Project Build-out occupancy of 1,396 dwelling units (including senior housing), these annual subsidy cost would amount to$256 forthe eight bus trip option or$ 198 for the six bus trip opt-ion. 'These costs on a monthly basis would be $21.35 for the eight bus trip option and $16.50 for the six-bus trip option. RRTIES ALAMO CPEER AND INTEFV04IN6 PRUP TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3- 11 On the basis of 1.1 persons per car during'peak commute,boursf the typical vebicle trip savings associated with 40 commute period passengers would be 36 cars for each commute period and about 24 rats during the peak hour of the commute period. ALAMO CREEK APO.INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT$rtUDY' WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page3'-12 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Means of Transportation to Work BART Mode of Access � e � m a a . 94 00 i`w M 00 � t-- CS S `r}. f`•. `Sf' O YK1 ,. CSrt'; d y "�" 40 i PSVtRi r° :-; C� G9 eF c O M OCG M NC14 V, bf eq Q o c o q \ \ \ a s a a a a a o o a o \ t� \ \ \ \ Q !; 00th -- Kf O C3 tt d O CS +h1 C> C5 H � ' q o a a o N c d d \', \ \ \ \ �. ^ tit? t 3} N +-+ O tT C3 CS xy q C3 IR In C U K C3 d "o 6 (s 6 N C) CS O00 *^! Q 0 ots1 oti g o o n\ p fa 00 Ch a O O M C7 c) O00 7 �p 0 g p N h e� Q M }„ 1/'y q tV Ci C3 O' r' a a`�o ,t- ed 6 kn(D S o -: 'D Cs --E c> t.. o o` tQ b l a 0000 'C b O C) N C> O Ni C? c7 C7 C7 fn Gn 4 F1, L? to d N C7 C3 00 V1 d C7 0, CU tiG O C) to C) C� 0 ti O GS .-+ C3 Q; ..� `•• M fn 44. Ury NJR 44 O > G N .s 5 41 N 0 44 Q3 tj .2' O IDU � va� � tn Appendix A»2:Made of Accessfor BART Patrons near Proposed Project Sites Dublin Pleasanton Station Mode Number Mode Share Car 312 90% Transit 28= 8% Bicycle 7 2% WalkedI 0% Total ota 348 100% Lafayette Station Mode Number Mode Share Car 305 88.2% Walked s' 20 5.8% Transit 19 55% Motorcycle/Moped 2 0.6% Total 346 100% ! Walnut Creek Station Mode Number Mode Share Car # 336 79.8% Walked 47 # 11.2% Transit 29 6.9% Bicycle 8 1 IM/. 'Taxi ( I 02% ,•�••�,Total r 421 � 100°/a All Study Area Stations Mode" Number Mode Share Car 953 95.5% Walked 68 6;1% Transit 76 68% Bicycle 15 1.3% Taxi 1'' 0.1% Motorcycle/Moped 2 02% Total 115 1060/0 Source;Wilbur Smith Associates,1998 APPENDIX B Vehicle Trip Rates Vehicle Trips Person Trips Transit Trips t Appendix B-1: Vehiele Trip Generation Rates..Alamo Creek and Intervening Properties Pro ©sed Alamo Creek pro`ect 'vehicle Tris I Land Use --7No.of Dwettin fiJnits Iu ottt 7`otaI Single Family Residential AM Peak Hour 679 0.25 0.75 1.00 PM Peak Hour ��]W 0.65 0.36 1.01 Daily Total79 4.785 4.785 9.57 Multi-Famrt ;Residential AM Peak Hour 124 0.08 0.43 0.51 PM Peale Hour 124 0.42 010 0.62 Daily Total 124 3,32 3.32 6.64 Senior Hnusin AM Peak Hour 120. 11.04 0.02 0.06 PM Peak Hour 120 0.10 0.07 0.17 Daily Taal 120 1.075 1.075 . 2.15 Proposed Intervening Properties Prtiject Land Use Vehicle Trips No.of Dweiliu Units In out Total Sin le Family Residential AM Peak Hour 377 0.2.5 0.75 PM Pear Hour 377 0.65 0.36 1.01 Daily 377 4.785` 4.785 9.53 Multi-family Residential AM Peak Hour % .0.08 0.43 0.51 PM Peale Hour 96 0.36 0.19 6.55 Daily 96 2.93 2,93 5.86 Source.Trip Generation at Buildout Full-Range Affordable Housing Alternative-Revised Jan 20,2004 {i)Alamo Creep E1R Appendix F of the Draft EIR for the Integrated project(DEIR),August 11,2000 .......... Appendix B-2.* Vebicle trips-Alamo Creek and Intervening Properties Proposed Alamo Creek Pro ect Nu,of.................. Vehicle Trips(1) Land use In Out I Total "mingle Famift Residential AM Peak Hour 679 170 509 679 PM Peak Hour 679 441 , 244 636 Daily Total 679 1,249 3,249 6,498— Mutti-Family Residential AM Peak Hour 1,24 10 53 63 PM Peak Hour 124 52 25 77 Daily Total 124 412 412 823 en or 1•l2l!UM AM Peak Hour 120 5 2 7 PM Peak Hour 120 12 8 20 Daily Tow 1210 129 129 258 7 Totat t Vaosed,41amo Creek?rrr AM Ptak Hour 194 565 749 FM Peak Hour 505 278 783 Daily 3,790 3,790 7,579 Proposed Intervening Properties Project No.of Vehicle TriRs,(1) Land Use Dwelling Units In Out Total :Single Family Residential AM Peak Hour 377 94 283 377 PM Peak Hour 377 245 136 391 .Daily 377 1,804_ 1,804 3,608 Multi-Family Residential AM Peak Hour 96 9 41 49 PM Peak Hour 96 35 18 53 Daily 96 291 281 563 Petal Propq ,ed enihP?yperties Project AM Peak Hour 102 324 426 PM Peak Hour 290 154 434 D'ally 4085 2,095 4,170 Combined Proposed Pr No.of Vehicle Tri s 11 land Use DwellingUB�Lu to out I Total sln&Family Residential AM Peak Hour 1,056 264 792 1,056 PM Peak Hour 1056 686 3$0 1,967 D4i!y Total 1,056 5,053 5,653 10,106 Multi*F!Ludy,Residential AM Peak Hour 220 18 95 112 PM Peak Hour 220 87 43 Dai! Total 220 693 693 386 senior Housing AM-Peak Hour 120 5 2 1 I'M Peak Hour 120 12 a 20 Dai N Total 120 129 129 258 Total CombinedtedProjects AM Peak Hour 286 889 1,175 PM Peak Hour 785 432 1,217 wally 5,475 5,875 11,750 — Source:Trip Gthennion atruildo�w Full-Ra4e Affordable Musing Altematim-Revised Ian 20,2004' (1)Based on vehicle tripgeneration rates dwived fiom the CCTA Model land Me=Meek Elk Appendix B-3:Person Trips-Alamo Creek.and Intervening Properties Proposed Alamo Creek Project No,of Vehick Person Trips 11,0hicie-1dode LandVae Dwelling Units Trips AVO by Vehicle Share% '* Total No.Person Trips: Sin to fatnily Residential AM Pea Hour 679 679 1.05 1 713 1 A , 679 PM Peak Hour 679 686 1.05 720 Wily Total 679 E,6,498 1.05 1 .6,823 92.5%. 7,376 Multi-Fpitj Residential Total AIM Peak Hour 124 63 1 L05 I- _66 PM Peak Hour 124 -77 1 1.05 81 Dail� 124 923, ] 1.05 865 923% 935 $*nior Housing AM PeA Hour 120 7 1.05 8 PM Peak Hour 120 20 1.05 21 Daft Total, 120 258 1,05 .271 92.5% 293 ralatPro pused Alamo Creek Prajed AM Peak Hour 749 1-05 A787 PM Peak Hour 783 1.05 822 pally 7J79 1-05 7,958 92.5ye 1 8,6#4 Proposed InterveningkraWties Project No.of Vehicle Person Trips. Vehicle Made Land Use Dwelling Un1ts Trips til -A VO by Vehicle Share Yo Irj Total No.Person Trips Sitz e Farnity Residential AM Peak Hour 377 377 1.05 396 PM Peak Hour 377 381 1-05 400, 'Daily 377 3,608, .,1.05 3,788 92.5% 41095 inti Fatuity Residential AM Piu&Hour .96 49 1,05 51 PM Peak Hour 96 53 1.05 55 Daily 96 563 1.05 591 92.5% 639 Total Pr used intervening lirap ernes Project AM Peak Hour 426 1.05, 447 PM Peak Hour I AIA 1.05, 455 NOY 4,170 1;05 4,379 92 4,734 Combiptil Proposed Projtcts No.Of VehiclePerson Trips Vehkle'Modt Land Use Dwelling Units, Trips(1) A V0 42) by Vehicle Share%'31 Total No.Person Trips Sipgle Farnily Residential Daily Total 1,056 111,106 557 = iOfil 1 92.5% 1 11,472 Multi-Fautily Residential Daily Total 220 1,56 1.675 1,455 9230/. 1,573 Senior Housing Dail Total 12O r58 1.05 :271 9T-5% 293 Combined Total Combined fLojosed ATie,�ts jo, Y .1- 11,75(/ I L051 12,33? 92.51/a Source:Trip Generation at Buildout Full-Range Affordable Housing Alternative-Revised Ian 20,2004 Source:Census 2WO Sumnuuy File 3(SF 3)-sample Data Based on six census tracts adjacent to the,.Prbposed Project sites. (1)Based on vehicle trip generation rates derrivtd from tele OCTA Model and Alamo Creek EIR (2)Assume$Average Vehicle Occupancy(AVO)of 1.05 per vehicle. Bandon the AVO for six census tracts adjacent to project area -to-work data for six census tracts adjacent to project area. Q)AssumesaveM le mode share of 92.5 percent.,Based on the journey Appendix B-4: Transit Trips ropose�tn* reek Projects Rai ART Transit Trips transit trips Bus trips to that are Bus Totat bas Transit Trips (97%of all BART(7'&/•of (4%ofall demand(taus'' No.of Person {mode share of transit trips are an rait trips are transit trips to Bart and Load Use Units Trips tri 5.31%)t�)• rail)tt) bus)th are bus) Rus to Work) iMit Family Residential'" Dai Total 679 . 7,376 396.1 383.9 26.9 15.8 42.7 Multi-Family Residential Dail' Total 124 935 54.2 48.6 3.4 2.0 5.4 Senior'klousiat Dail'Totat 120 293 15.7 13:2 1.1 b.b i.7 Total Pr sed tame Creek Pro e¢t Dally 8,604 461fi 447.8 31.3 19.11 Sd3 'Prop sed Intervening Properties Project aiVRART Transit Trips transit trips Bus trips to that are Bus Total bus Transit Trips• (97%of all BART(7%of (4%of all demand($us No.of Person (mode share of transit trips are an rail trips are transit trips to Bart and Land Use Units 'Trips t') 5.37%)t'I rad)to bus) are bus) flus to Work), Sinj!e,Family Residential' Daily 213.1- 14.9 8.8 23.7 Mufti-Family Residential Dail} 96 639 314.3 332 2.3 I.4 3.7 Tot«alPro osedlntervenln Pro ertiesPraert Dalty 1 4,734 234.2 246.4, 17210.2 27.4 Combined Proposed Projects Rail/BART Transit Trips transit trips Bus trips to that are Bos Total bus Transit Trips (97%of an DART(7%of {4%of an demand{i3ns No.of Pelson ! (mode share of transit trips are a0 rail.trps are transit trips to Bart and Load Use Units Trips ti) 5.37%)Cr) rail)to bus)(4) are bus) Bus to Work) in le Family Residential' I7ai' Total i'm-1 l 1,472 -- 616.0 597.0 41:8 24.6 66.4 Multi-Fami!X Residential Daily Total 220 1,573 84.5 $1'n.9 51 3.4 9.1 Senior 2lousin Daily Total 120 293 15.7 15.2 1,1' 0.6 1.7 Total Combined Proposed Projects Daily 13,338 716.2 694,2 4410, 28.6 77.2 8ourd e:Cams 2600 Summary RIS 3($F 3)-Sample Data Based on six census tracts adjacent to the PmposW Project sites. (1)See Appendix'8-3 (2)Set Appendix A-i (3)See Appandix A-i (4)Sea Appendix A-2 APPENDIX C County Connection RTE 221 Existing 96Q BIC and 9701 Routes Route 221L The,reduction of service from the former Route 221 to the new 22 IL provides only one daily round trip in the peak commute direction to Walnut Creek BART. The morning trip.-begins at Bolli119 er Canyon Road and Annabel Lane (west of Bishop Ranch) at 6:30 am reaching the Camino Tassajara/Crow Canyon-Road intersection at 6:42 am.l The bus goes as far north as the Danville Boulevard and Alamo Plaza, traveling via Sycamore, San Ramon Valley Road and Green Valley Road. The frequency of service and complications reconnecting segments of the route,suggests that modification of Route 22 1 L isnot a very attractive option. �V Fie 'a +ci t: ai N rz g 4�1 (i C " ti0 Oi C't Coq'. v�y' ,, 4 NO Q, C> N > des �G N y t+'f tl � t4 ,,,,R ", 00 CX t� ♦.r �'3 h iV 14, 100 ON `� e1 Q oil jt� N 00 \0 ONIN U oo iv ry c i c• " U H w #n :n u7 ON O Mlw,hots err Park!N Rile .. ar +��- fy ;, kyy� ' 1ah p 00,R mov 4 IB IMd {111 ! �' Ik l iit1oy !Clow C*nyosi Ad P1060*,Wm ole i *Wh W. op A�v�iE►a►ct VAU p 'Wsuw by** M;28, also IR42 -707 30s- Aw lot" t :est b _ se� x � 2 Am so AA7_ ti�asr. wrrw f �IF R .iisli Or lov- Omiii i, S S+e KXO O"S C)rsly rMe-Umm puolUbeid In Cyst 1��ii�l Sc►�a+ ►.!r�It i+a m*taC r mod Ibrachor + not Alit #1 St r sa '!fs a na<OW Pa+ ungta C+u+wtt9r onto ser 41*Kuptiornx.but PINd sawvp(* �vrt�r t ait ctipt[arstr�rr.rrapl�r ties a� � furr�r�rna3 FITC OlUbaOst Gatti HctieCl"rfde f W*Jt t'XWM tiuwm uips,A #3►rsar=bl"arm subtamto tvtx 9 oat a � m' #t+MM r an ted OMs. chanuo waho rt rayaca. xpw*s6 flat,�'d�9t9 . �Sf 1 >'hlrsl�Idip f��rrth 7YaAraas��r�tsri G�srx Al �n .......... ...... 7� 960C MitobWl Or P*rU N Aide Cxvw Canyon Rd T11 Arm ftvz SOOVOtillmob"R*rtch ttelng Omw 6, For mkvw*�swvg,Od"Inger cany*"Ad 6 4z, Ift" 4%40 040'. a44 4-46 's -12 �, I Ss 13i iao Jm t� 7%" 7zA6 IVO 74*, 14m: ?-57. lei Okpi &0 *11 421. ISNAV, 1*0 7w" R= ex" SAW .949 JKIIO 609 -A AAj§ 4:51: lkn: Aw" tkso, OAL Wilk 5*5 4A# -407-; �-r 0 440',� *W, *K. k 4m itav t Aftft", aw z9m DART 000tWOOOOat' wWWOOwMwMwi+r+ www fifth SPS R*nch wmatay4w rid*FOtr imth 00 Oqw*" S4Zhaot 'i5 irntnucrr� S srh*ct 0ays cwly i ria ,v pubtlohad•fn 40=A 00 16O."Y"Kt Uwtagobtog Arid,b**4bUfAb*40 IAOX pWf1w. AMUghtNp(sYFs 00111!�ic ou'' emptare.,but r�IktSCOO* M*1000*441*w:M tai eZid � - - , -P A" I iii,"armul rkit*ms rw 146th Ajfftlkbkv AM wl�wia, ti4w 10 AM-u"�2 fto*~y0ay thim"I*wtomotAotom. Rte Rrirartraifirs *CAM"' 91600 tot tot 9704-D 0170C jf,7W--7-W Is U oobow o Ooo 7 7 9"1040 DART crow cowon Rd slahop Avii0h 40 k2 Ursa a Serving Dishop 't-14 5A ; POW $14* * 4 1 Ronl:h USIng CMW oWhop, 1*"O-d 1,y the:04"P 1t SkolVagor OalmVao Ad pioeo*400 the 0708. 19706 1970B cm "hop *"Uxft OU g*600: 9708 ART IJU Mogk4W Omyon Ad stamp Ra"Oh servIrig shwho SA 'Ipan t 49 '7MI 7!45 Al, 7,49 StO4 no *,is Mt? W.16 11:21 W.2s 629 is s FCW WerVj4Ct0 tMj"a Crow conyon Ad twl4 At ptse"see t1ho 9?OC. . . Atiolk loo In 4Af AP . Bhp"hch Anq"�k-- 4t'll row :j� rk%VW vAth so Vxpmu IdL Aim OUIF Pox*Usood by Oho loshop "Alm Bishop Ranch Employment Centers I sn _t 9 � "747 Pa's F f9U 1 y*�.y x, , gyp= .d r ky k t 1 f LJI 9v"g. 1 IMF APPENDIX E County Connections Adapted policy for Service Expansion POUCY b ApdI of 1991,CCC "A ado ud a Policy on Sw4ce Stmammemmstratim MJem whkb was vAdW Im a9m,,and wWth oonWmd four-almemm Adding max#Wadcm of ft atisfing systemn.mal pIMAuS end doubhutions by ambo j pwfor'mance meamms;fctr wvr=—vim, ad dmmsvWon pari}=dellatita fit PY 200D,t1te Operadam=d Sohe�Wing(S)C=mittm rcgoested that Smff tako anoter look at this utea and dmlop a mom coli sive sm of gaidoiiass ft scvke cacp=sim would ad sties and indude defttious for saMcee 1. The rwornumdations kdreiu are cxattsl sit with,CCCTA's; imiun Statemenr. 2. All new=Mm shall"be,objeav tt pmftcdvty amduft wed in CC CTA'ir hoftctM,ty Svmdar4 PoS fear sm serer. 3. All iivw or impmed.service mqFlay_privft enures small barmy subsidized by the privam.=tit. This subsidy sha14 ode full subsidy of ai3l apearadag cost and any"dost qyportmdty='and c gUal asst(if p sibla). lbo com shaU be adjusted at leo biunutlly so raflect tho aerial } t of providing the mom. 4. AM new mvice,Ant mai d oppttmitim for IntartWng sad deadbW and acn-prat i tium and/or mmlea,. All new se ict a�tx�this g'i�. wr tf public ctr privat t,and ft availshility of trios and human tmam (drltrers)to - Opezmc t m service without uwavdy hopowng vdsftg wrist. Na new serA a inaany cap sb nadatt�without um fntads'tca continue w ise.`far st ieasr oae ftit y=,or,it ft caso of Umited_dM J ot's, t&*.ftt Petiod'faqu "Bile piiisr lir a t r t '1� ply owy to gmer&rbc m vise ; and not to spac iaB s hoe for ADA ebgible r ens as provided by liLBtlt 7. " e priorities ljsftd Wow romSmim 4W iu*mu made itr we p arity a s may sho betieft users it mother pkiudpy area (U.. m1provomonts Ibr routes serves cam=tm lay also benefit tlae text � ti"fit.) S. Tht prior b6low ca*MCIV&cmm vG qppr6whts to servim rrision, ed it g the ust of vam Aex rig,subectiption servicm,subistirution of R 1.� ! 4 {« 4i. N;.4 xA.✓ '.ttl l3P...t :.z�e 4: P.,r+: tl.,y�;3M1F @ //`. 119%{. i ii$r'.e 11 i M IC41} W'dS 't 3.4 :4 +�i t�,.p.. 41"v' ilIX t ' {•:+1. � i� #fiFA'Y 4 �ItC"� :t..� 3`e «..H i 4P+ •. i»5141PW' 13 s.qY 19' ab.:# R 9C4 4 'J w^NA�..dj I. IXtli 5 saIp it'lI 1.; i* dS r d'.$ s.! F 'E i`C 07-T Fd. i"1{Ba _$ ., t:<i•h -.+! y^.v;' .si, k1i !i 'bs#.e.i 8kttt; 4e i3 '.IP efi :e. t s 3.P' iil<a +r a k'. 73-k• $. e R i'x y:�1A 2'aII i=��e�.. 11, @t •,ei.=dMlY At ;is 4 07.. 775 1 �'` i:...t i F OR. 'KCI li.p, 'h N...p {AF /F+ ✓ 1*3/! ° 4' F � !w{'. _�.9�...,t4.IXr ..A:� .ca.. � a 4e .t '� #' «b 41#4 z 1 $•i: : , � d , ;v.,q{ ",F:. sli i c ;i4i weAp: ! ."P ARM if a!r•.!4r^ i¢;!'qt A s N++1 i' 'Yi:� ='# $w ..i"..iv 1'A ifi I a.! i,Jd. .. .F c Y..' 4 3•: lfr$ 4! I• ::i tai {.n. 31 !i. :IX; I�a9 F+d 141 ,<a �:#'/6! R:: ie3 '7F 4 Y- i 'w+p:. ,i.. t ap! ✓. '4t ••.a+ i'P.: ?m to ..Y'ij# M•9 .,.•:ti Al/ .1#'4 i ti3:s!4 9: 9 RN.;..'.i i l�x���i 1. m�;a■■gp� ,A sl•., :r.A.. i ..,1. 9 .�iaasa33t..,. w+ •..ks@gR p`gg r411 4^ l/= i:,ilalr. 3 %C # e e Y i. 4, 4-� F8 #.'# :€ # 4R i'i} < ki i O .n $f E Y p 64 ^i 3♦Y'k $- '% i9 i.ma 991: t d 1.<�; A '' :�°.. 1 4 'i e+ SY':7) � ii1#3'i � R ♦ i- «k1'^'. i ✓i#3,..W%4.. ;.,µl Ax-w 2i F 4 t.++. i61 ",l>�,+'3 {'k :F9 1 $`� yt P..;;SI !$ i' vb: k !,• IlUff . #-Ji F b 1 i1S i tT k t 3 i C i i k 4.."bR 4 4t, #9 M9 ,+ «8 F Ae "4{ ;<4s1: It k. ?.## k ieA ..4 88 •:lµ,avl .1{y i 4Y ...: t# i vr. t IX„�'- ro is ♦ w4 { .t - g„3: ..Ai , i lig {♦ i 3 ti t ✓ ia._evil 1= s�F:-t:t Ihg iwa .:P-t 1. ^:ib«. a1 Rtc:. � i'. v.d4 t-i nt yR�;y W s:1 Q' E 5+'4 w, 1 i q M_ 4 Yi a r,s<-1_ A't 1 "f ?YI ,1. •v.t,-S i.dR u f 8 i i # 4 :A.. Oil i (tt S ' 4. A13 AI.„;k i.` IMNIVINAOI t a a t,ief is,ifif y$ ...t 4 r k•`. .i $ #{ -'.4 4;I ''i t'N a ��;#.0 � 6 +$ i '. #"1 t Ai;. :ab WAM Lill -j-j-j-jiu 77e ft m 19 .,a t;: tot 44 l.; 49 Is t .:D[ 'Los $4•"sIef *IT 04 A ' oc: is a 41 TIT117114 rs I itA .'Stir a sift- TT147 " ' � �; t� its dl4i�E ,r�C * ir rBTts 7f=. , 'M . * GP��1.(��'� ) ray Iamar bued on dt=mM t WbIch h4vp,so=4 to r . . titta of mrd thou 45 ngu*6r. d 4 of am = l WMtbof smvke q=A, ddiftu4,'t"=m in tkt to=of do. M2&wftqwv=m%.'wbld am be � 1'te pxxity peer JbM tlaM 34:Plus ftWM tacai" CLAMP OG►�h+Q tt> C�} i ti�3C . R* x. VD 'Od' t rd ffYio Y-*d ` ? tf s+ ct . tr ►of and for wbkb at t film twh �ovp Wit, 'SA''car r lom" 'fid is My wj of boor owwtor MY 7 ' � 3: ►s�' :di � rlar ig£mac,. not a se ty1me * '11 t t fc�r Ir ai drive= E i • j s CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .. 651 Pine Street North Wing -'4'h Floor Martinez,CA 94553 Telephone: (925)335-1290 Fax (925) 335-1300 TO: Aruna 13hat,Current Planning I+'ROM: John Cunningham,Transportation Planning Division DATE: March 25,2005 SUBJECT: Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties Transit Improvements Study This memo transmits the subject study,which will,provide the basis for the Engineer's Report required by Condition'188.13 (County File: DP#99-3032and SD#99-8331) and Condition 138.13(County File: DP99-3042 and SD#99.8381!8382). This study provides options for transit service in the subject area and could serve as the cost basis'for the establishment of a funding mechanism.Projected operating costs for the service can be found on page 3-10. The potential services are described on page 2-15 Sonne additional recommendations and caveats can be found below.Please let me know if you have any questions on this study. Several issues that should be 'addressed at the time the Public'Works Department establishes the assessment mechanism I. if the service is not utilized or otherwise unsuccessful can a mechanists be established to eliminate the service and corresponding assessment? 2. Can different assessments be levied to the different housing types in the development(a question from the developer)? ISSUIES TU CONSIDER FOR NEXT STEPS Funding Mechanism:The study provides a range of feasible options for providing transit service to the project. The option most appropriate for the project cannot be known until the actual needs ofthe residents and the actual transit service in the surrounding area is known. This'canrrot be known until the project is substantially completed,which will be some years in the fixture, The funding mechanism must'be established before the project i; occupied,'therefore, the funding mechanism needs to provide the flexibility to implement any ofthe options described in the report. A funding mechanism that has sufficient capacity to fund the most expensive options in the report(Options A-I Full,A-2 Full,A-3 Full,C Full,D Full,E Full All$357,000 Annually) will ensure sufficient flexibility to implement the most appropriate service for the residents of the project, Costs:If a hording mechanism is not established in the next 12 months, it would be advisable to get either updated cost estimates or confirmation ofthe casts found in Table 12(page 3-10 service providers prior to setting a service cast to be funded by the project finding mechanism. Modifications Required to Complete Report Provide for Open Ridership:Consultation with CCCTA staff resulted in a determination that restricting' the service to a subset of defined patrons(Project Residents,;Bishop Ranch employees,etc.[Page 3-8- Section 3,6])is not advisable for several reasons; + Restricting riders in this manner would subject the eventual service provider to a different set of requirements(Federal Transit Administration Charter Service regulations)hien what is typical in public transit service.This would complicate the provision of service by limiting the ability to coordinate with other services,both confusing and limiting long term platuling options. + Automated paymentmechanisms currently available(TransLink,PayPal,etc.)should make collecting fares or distributing passes much less burdensome to administer: + From a business standpoint,potential users ofthe transit service should not be restricted as long as that transit service benefits the residents paying for that service. The study gives`a general location for bus stops. Specific locations would be best determined with consultation with;CCCTA and Public Works staff,pursuant to Condition 188.A and Condition 138.A for each respective project. Disregard Section 3.4 ADA Compliance: Any service:implemented as a part ofthe Alamo Creek Transit Fee will be commuter service and thus exempt (Code of Federal Regulations — Title 49' Transportation,Section 37.121)from complementary paratiansit service requirements.All other information in this section is speculative and is outside the scope of work of the Mcdy- Vehicle Type:Actual vehicle type will best be determined when service is ready to be initiated. As noted in the study,a spacious,comfortable vehicle'would assist in attracting the potential patrons in the neighborhood.tither amenities such as the provision of television and wireless internet access,now fairly common and affordable in vehicles,should be considered to increase the attractiveness ofthis service. i Responses to Comments "The senior unite may be residential'care and the ownerloperator thereof must use best efforts to provide transit shuttle service.*" The residents ofthe senior care facility are not likely patrons ofthe transit service.However,the employees ofthe facility are likely patrons.Providing transit service may help the facility recruit and retain employees. Transit patronage from these employees may assist in offsetting the deadhead time for any service provided. Construct bus stop locations with initial infrastructure:"It is premature at this time to determine the location and type of bus stops. It would be hest to note that bus stops may be needed in the future and that the details can be decided at the time when the type of the transit program and related improvements are identified" Given the complexity of installing a bus stop in a built up area it is advisable to identify the most likely places for bus stops and;at a minimum,set aside the right-of-way to accommodate the stop.While it is possible that different types of transit service would require stops'in different locations,given the limited prospects for transit in the subject area we can develop a fairly reliable approximation of where stops should be located. cc: S.Goetz,C3 T.Rae,PWD L.Tbeis,P" A Torre,Shapell C.DaWgren,CCCTA T.Wiltiarns,Danville L.Bobadilla,SanRwnon fr, f'r,�n�p�rrt:a3i�>n,(:uauiin 4surn,cntnicir���u�f4tat ac�� l.iii�c EXHIBIT LAFCO Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 05-15 RESOLUTION OF TBE,LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING-THE FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT) WHEREAS, the above-referenced proposal has been filed with the Executive'Officer of the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (Section 56000 et seq. of the Government Code); and WHEREAS, at the times and in the manner required by taw the Executive Officer has given notice of the Commission's consideration of the proposal; and WHEREAS, the Commission heard, discussed and considered all oral and written testimony'related to the proposal including,but not limited to, the Executive Officer's report and recommendation, the environmental document or determination, Spheres of Influence and applicable'General and Specific Plans; and WBEREAS, information satisfactory to the Commission has been presented that all the owners of land within the affected territory have given their written consent to the proposal; and WHEREAS, the annexing agency has consented to waiving the conducting: authority proceedings; and WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission determines the proposal to be in the best interests of the affected area and the total organization of local governmental agencies within Contra Costa County. NOW, TTEREFORE,the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Contra Costa DOES HEREBY RESOLVE DETERMINE AND ORDER as follows: 1. The Comn-tission certifies it reviewed and considered the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report prepared and certified by the County of Contra Costa. 2. Said formation is hereby approved, 3 The subject proposal is assigned the distinctive short-form designation: FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT) 5. The boundaries of the affected territory are found to be definite and certain as;approved and set forth in Exhibit A, attached''hereto and made a part hereof. Centra Costa LAFCO' Resolution No. 05-15 6. The formation is conditioned upon and subject to asuccessful election to authorize the district to levy benefit assessments as required by the County in its approval of the land uses cresting the need for the district. 7. All subsequent proceedings in connection with this formation shall be conducted only in compliance with the'approved boundaries set forth in the attachments and any terms and conditions specified in this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS I&'day of September 2005, by the following vote AYES: Allen, Glover, Meadows, McNair, David Piepho, Schroder, Uilkema NOES: None ABSTAINS: None I hereby certify that this is a;correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by this Commission on the da'te stated above 3 Dated: September 14, 2005 /3�� --� Bob Braitman,'Executive Officer "FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)" ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT $'At, ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY, SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEING A PORTION OF SECTIONS 4, 5 AND,9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, AND A PORTION OF SECTIONS 32 AND 33, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, MOUNT D'IABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SUB-PARCEL 1>'(ALAMO CREEK) BEGINNING AT THE POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 73018'43"WEST 428.94 FEET FROM A STANDARD STREET MONUMENT IN THE INTERSECTION OF BLACKHAWK DRIVE AND CAMINO TASSAJARA, THE CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM 1983 DATUM ZONE 3 COORDINATE N 2281183.90, E 6438840.32, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A.RADI'US OF 1950.21 FEET,A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 12059'15"WEST; THENCE 1) EASTERLY 492.41"FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH'A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14028'00" A CHORD DISTANCE OF 491.10 FEET; THENCE 2) SOUTH 88°41'01"'EAST 918.99 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1950.20; THENCE 3) EASTERLY 187.74 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5030'56",A CHORD DISTANCE OF 187.67 FEET; THENCE 4) NORTH 01-28'35" EAST 14.90 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON= TANGENT'CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 2296.66 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 05012'58" EAST; THENCE 5) EASTERLY 214.43 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5020'58", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 214.35 FEET; THENCE 6) SOUTH 79°26'06" EAST 129.83 FEET; THENCE 7) NORTH '78°02'16" WEST 347.00 FEET; THENCE 8) NORTH 01028'35" EAST 25.42 FEET; THENCE 9) SOUTH 78-02'16" EAST 840.37 FEET; THENCE 10)SOUTH 0503328" EAST 1146.07 FEET; THENCE 11) SOUTH 02-14'27"WEST 1660.66 FEET; THENCE 12) SOUTH 72°51'09" EAST 248.70 FEET; THENCE 13) SOUTH 19-55'23-WEST 485.76 FEET; THENCE' 14) SOUTH 19-04'32" EAST 310.76 FEET; THENCE ` 15)SOUTH 07-28'37"WEST 231.10 FEET; THENCE 16) SOUTH 14°22'57" EAST 352.47 FEET' THENCE "FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT) ALAMO CREEK I INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 17) SOUTH 13°32'28"WEST 520.13 FEET; THENCE 18) SOUTH 37000'00"WEST 220.00 FEET; THENCE 19) SOUTH 66°46'00"WEST 552.17 FEET; THENCE 20) SOUTH 0730'00" EAST 160.52 FEET; THENCE 21) SOUTH 05°30'00"WEST 1330.80 FEET; THENCE 22) NORTH 71-3436"WEST 133.16 FEET; THENCE 23) SOUTH 67°50'49'WEST 63.56 FEET; THENCE 24) SOUTH 44°21'38 WEST 305.22 FEET; THENCE 25) NORTH 05-5920" EAST 375.19 FEET; THENCE 26) NORTH 88°49'33"WEST 3897.41 FEET THENCE 27) NORTH 00°49'06" EAST 2652.17 FEET; THENCE 28) NORTH 89°01'17"WEST 247.65 FEET; THENCE 29) NORTH 32049'40" EAST 867.88 FEET; THENCE 30) SOUTH 90°00'00" EAST 155.88 FEET; THENCE 31) NORTH 33002'46" EAST 252.87 FEET; THENCE 32) NORTH 75°34'33" EAST 378.03 FEET; THENCE 33) NORTH 45°01'27" EAST 353.57 FEET; THENCE 34) NORTH 48-50'17" EAST 346.67 FEET; THENCE 35) NORTH 23°26'47" EAST 355.30 FEET; THENCE 36) NORTH 03°12'08"EAST 728..98 FEET; THENCE 37) NORTH 42°36'00"EAST 313.12 FEET; THENCE 38) NORTH 04°56'23"EAST 193.13 FEET; THENCE 39) NORTH 45°07'49"WEST 25.69 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 522.14 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 84047'59" EAST; THENCE 40) NORTHERLY 144.80 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15°53'21", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 144.34 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 462.11 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 68054'38"WEST; THENCE 41) NORTHERLY 134,34 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16039'23", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 133.87 FEET; THENCE 42) NORTH 04025`59"WEST 225.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 90.00 FEET; THENCE 43) EASTERLY 136.40 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 86°50'02'; A CHORD DISTANCE OF 123.71 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 2083.05, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 07035'57" EAST; THENCE 44) EASTERLY 216.66 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5057'34", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 216.56 FEET; THENCE 45) NORTH 7602629" EAST 402.94 FEET; THENCE 46) NORTH 03°16'26'" EAST 34.21 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. "FORMATIONOF COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSITY' ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SUB-PARCEL 2 (INTERVENING PROPERTIES) BEGINNING AT THE WEST % CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, THE CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE_'SYSTEM 1983 DATUM, ZONE 3 COORDINATE IS N 2,284,433.21, E 6,435,138.95; THENCE FROM,SAID POINT OF BEGINNING 1) NORTH 01°12'32" EAST 1693.82 FEET 2) NORTH 01°1232" EAST 882.54 FEET; THENCE 3) NORTH 00°51'07" EAST 657.98 FEET; THENCE 4) SOUTH 89°08'53" EAST 277.44 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NOW TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 45.00 FEET A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 38005'26"WEST; THENCE 5) EASTERLY 55.88 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF'71 008'48", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 52.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 33003'22"WEST; THENCE 6) EASTERLY 11.24 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32012'15", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 11.09 FEET; THENCE 7) SOUTH 89°08'53" EAST 102.50 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF'A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 640.00 FEET; THENCE 8) EASTERLY 102.24 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH'A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°09'11", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 102.13 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF'A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH, HAVING A'RADIUS OF 341.29 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS'SOUTH 01 00018"WEST; THENCE 9) EASTERLY 170.55 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28037'57", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 168.78 FEET; THENCE 10) NORTH 71°22'20"-EAST 215.17 FEET;THENCE 11) NORTH 26°22'20" EAST 28.28 FEET; THENCE 12) NORTH 18-37'40-WEST 50.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 239.00 FEET; THENCE 13) NORTHERLY 87.22 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20°54'31'", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 86.73 FEET; THENCE 14) NORTH 02°16'51" EAST 466.15 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE 15) NORTHWESTERLY 31.50 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90014'49", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 28.35 FEET; THENCE 16) SOUTH 87-57'58" EAST 46.24 FEET; THENCE "FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)" ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 17) NORTH 00°51'07" EAST 50`.01 FEET; THENCE 18) SOUTH 8705758" EAST 338.35 FEET; THENCE 19) SOUTH 74024'09" EAST 555.01 FEET; THENCE 20) SOUTH 10°50'35" WEST 330.93 FEET,'THENCE 21)SOUTH 12°3535" EAST 1024.98 FEET;THENCE 22)SOUTH 10028'23"WEST 860.58 FEET; THENCE 23) SOUTH 10°2823" WEST 567.73 FEET; THENCE 24)SOUTH 32049'40" WEST 1332.65 FEET; THENCE 25)NORTH 89°01'17„ WEST 1063.07 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 756.12 ACRES'MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT'"B" ATTACHED, AND BY THIS REFERENCE MACE APART HEREOF. A.P.N.'S 206-020-033, 206-190-001, 002, 003, 005& 006, 2016-220-001, 002, 003 & 004 AND 206-030-23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33 & 35 AND 206-020-017. DRIJ N0. 6333 CAMINp TASSAJARA CAMINO 'TASSAJARA J r 2 x Z t3'1 N tri.. o r H � o LIC DA wo �} w � N N '16014 A49 �S } 0 CP 0*0 SEE\SVACj A i. N p� � �V� per' ` f� \ rn \ �n ;7.4 °� o y0 Un`" .0 �' �' �o'� �� \ ° X32 `p' Coq c' 44�' �� l04. \h� '' A 5 C- N pt7 Nit G '03 J �ti � ° N \t° _�; 1 \' > N J0 "% G o ya 1p '.-: \ \ t co-) -0000 00. gr`0 N 0to fm tp ta top 4,0 CD LA o o, J' w o e. cl 70 bo p� S N bo— ,aob— f)o- o to N 71*34'36" W 133.16' 5 67"50'49" W 63,36'3 g• 9' �H W '' + 44"21'3$" W 305.22' ob - .N 2 EXHIBIT low$ PLAT MAP SUB-PAROL 1 GRAPHIC SCALE' 400 0 200 400 800 1600 00 SCALE 1"=40£3' { IN 'FEET 1 inch = 400 ft, EXIST. CAMINO TASSAJARA RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC ' 28' E 1146.07 S 05`33 S 78`02"16,, E 840,37' Lu S 79`26'06,, E 129.83' or W R=2296.66' S 7 N 78`02'16" W347.00' L=347.00 --'''A=05`20'58.. C=214.35' N 01'28'35" E 25.42' - — - i - — — — — ON 01'28'35" E 14.90' SUB-PARCEL 1 R=1950.20, 0 L=187.74' A=05#30'56" C=187.67' 206-030--023 S 88'41'01 `, E 918.99' _ _ -7- 206-030- 1 206-030-- 1 las-a3a-O261 027 N 00`3259" W 22.91' 1 N 11`1 '1 T" W --------- 288.51 ' `N 73'18'43 E 428.94 (TIE TO MON. 2 88:51 ' q72.41 `� ` 2a6_aaa—azs $LASE R *59 L2 AC "FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA T--1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)" ,26" E 418.08' 30 ALAMO CREEK f INTERVENING PROPERTIES ( 03.15CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A206-1904 001,0002,0635{ 05,006 833,35 206-220-001,002,003 004 & 223-020-017POR) APRIL 17, 2005 SHEET '3 OF $ 98-1009-11 8381 I.AFCO.DWG'' EXHIBIT 111113111 PLAT MAP SUB-PARCEL I GRAPHIC SCALE 400 0 200 400 sw 1600 me—low SCALE 1"=800' IN FEET ) I inch = 400 ft. EXIST. CAMINO TASSAJARA---., RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC S 05-33$2B" F- 1146.07 ................................ S 78*02'16 E 840.37' SUB-PARCEL 1 G) S 79*26'06" E 129.83 R=2296.66' L=214.43' A=05*20'58" N 78.02"16" W 347,00' C=214.35' 0 N 05*12'56 to E (R) - - - - - - - - - - - - N 01`28'35" E 25.42' "FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE G) AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)„ ALAMO CREEK / INTERVENING PROPERTIES N 01*2835" E 14.90 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A.P.N.'S 206-030-23,25,26,27,28,33,35 & 206-190-001,002,003,005,006 & 206-220-001,002,003 004 & 223-020-017(POO) R=1950.20' APRIL 17, 2005 L=187.74' A=05*30'56" ASSOCIATES C=491,10' 11, 1 1440 Maria Lone, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, California 94596 SHEET 4 OF 6 98-1009-11 Phone: (925) 932-6868 Fax: (925) 932-0910 8381—LAFCO.DWG SHADOW CREEK OR. HANSEN' LN. N 2,288,446,8S 875758" E 6,4.35,211. 0 CAMI 0 TASSAJARA E 338.35 18 W 55's o j `''� � c., to O' rn I Ln t/1 o w CASABLANCA 5 z s w , 11 s � to v to �,,, � *'O 4 X W 062 z p I mco O 063 �� o O1� b > 120 z w -h C Ln UJiD rn Z W Z w .J CO. w N NZp -n GERBERA ST N " o 0 { Ngo• zoy© 206-480-117 O i. OQ�Q N o O :U APN 206-490 01 _ ,� .1 -'' -r _ '' ,' (A 1 N542> 15 N m L- ttiO�"" �`� c7 i cx+ X al A NNOmn r+i 014 m "�v ~' 'o o z C') ray >t("A 1 1 OX O 013 s o z �t+ rl)�� ;um� .. m ©� iZ + r*1 12 tTl o N o:° t/) O r N p a3�- O M APN 11 N— L4 + Cb VCO8"MtAQoMm0 d 206-49 10 co I N \ a °' d"ON`s .. C7 206-45 011 N is?v �i °7 ( N to-41 Z Z +� p APN 12 � a z o O"E7O�N� Z 013 I I o O r z til O W 0 Z 014 N rn / �' t�> n -4> Z rn 206-450- 15 1 a t J - -- GY R'00P 73-.1 N APN \ / / tlr a A:V'V rpt APN N> rn V Wz 206-140-029 �z V (jib" rn APN 206-140-017 ~ W tdi APN L 206-140-0062 l a r7la rn c z f0 APN M ro N b \ o Ove j ..•b 206-140-012 W cnm o Mr, Nom+V \\ tC► CID y APN +4 O w p 206-140-020 \\ S L,4 ,,�\ tnti M z N 89'01'17" W 1063.07' 5 Cb p N rn Z Ln " Z 4203.46' N iw o ' o o N 89'01'1'7" W -�w dto .i1 w EXHIBIT ! !! PLAT MAP SUB-PARCEL 2 "FORMATION OF COUNTY SEkVECE AREA T--1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)" . .. .. ALAMO CREEK f INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A.P.N. S 206-030-23,25 26,27,28,33,35 & 206- 190--00` '002,003.605,006 & 206--220--001,002,003 004 & 223-020-017?FOR) APRIL 17, 2005 200 0 100 200 400 z rn Z> a N dry Nor} d L4 00GRAPHIC SCALE '00 -°'� ay ( IN FEET } -°' � n rn 1 inch = 200 €t. `�{' rn ns ixz d r N 03'19'39" w CAMINO TAS'SAJARA 37.66'(TIE TO CQ--w— r- r' S87'57'58E 889.59' (TIE) "'""•� D=90`1449" z w S87`57'5$"E 46:24' 16' R=20.00` n ... L=31.501' 0 , C=28.35' 15 o o =uj dr co hi O Z st A=20`54'31" AH 0=32.12'15" R=239.00' R=20.00' L=87.22' 206 480--025 L=11.24' uj 6=28'37'57 C=86.73' 13 0 C=11.09' R=341.29' 026 o S89'08'53"E ` L=170.55" l �t` N18 37 40 W 027 bs 102.50 C=168.78 50.55' 12 028 (�' '1" fid' •►� N26`22'20"E 118 277.44' 4 21� ,� Zp 2$.28' 11 CASA$LANC; S1' S89'08'53"E J 119 0 !Q A=71'08'48' A=09`09'111" to R=45:'00' r'f'/ R=640.00 062 L=55.88" L=102.24' �",, m C=52.36' C=102.13' SHEET 6 OF 6 EXHIBIT E NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that: On October 18,2005,the Board adopted Resolution No.2005/4 ,resolving and ordering that: The Board declares its intention to establish the "County Service Area — TI (Public Transit) (CSA). The CSA is proposed to be established under the terms of Chapter 2.2 of Title 3 of the Government Code in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. A legal description and a map of the proposed service area are attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B,respectively. The services to be provided are extended transit services as described more fully in the report entitled, "Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties Transit Improvements Study: Final Report" (March 2005), prepared at the request of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department,and attached as Exhibit C to the Resolution. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 25210.3a and 25210.13,the County Board of Supervisors(Board)is required to obtain approval of the formation of the CSA from the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO)prior to establishing the CSA. Accordingly, on June 14, 2005, the Board adopted a Resolution of Application to initiate LAFCO proceedings to form the CSA. On September 14, 2005, LAFCO adopted Resolution No. 05-15, attached as Exhibit D, which approved formation of the CSA. In anticipation of the contemplated establishment of the CSA, the Board declares its intention, consistent with the requirements of Article XIII(D) of the California Constitution, Government Code section 25210.1 et seq.and section 53750 et seq., and Elections Code section 4000, to order that the cost and expenses of maintaining and operating the CSA shall be assessed against those parcels within the boundary of the CSA (see attached Boundary Map), which are specially benefited by the CSA. The Board further declares its intention to assess against those parcels shown on the Boundary Map for the 2005 fiscal year and for subsequent years, all or part of the amounts set forth in the Engineer's Report commencing the first fiscal year following issuance of a building permit for that parcel. Notwithstanding Paragraph 5 above, the Board shall not order this assessment if a majority protest exists as defined in Section 4(e)of Article XIII(D)of the California Constitution. Each of the parcels identified on the Boundary Map will receive a particular and distinct special benefit in the form of extended transit services that are over and above the general benefits received by the general public. These special benefits are described in detail in the attached Transit Report Exhibit C),which is also on file with the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisor's office. Hereafter, whenever the parcels identified on the Boundary Map are re-subdivided and a final map is approved and filed for recording with the County Recorder, each newly created residential lot will be assessed in the mannerprovided in the Engineer's Report. The Board has reviewed and considered the Engineer's Report. The special benefit derived from the CSA by each parcel is proportionate to the entire costs of the CSA, and the amount of the assessment is proportional to, and no greater than, the benefits conferred on each parcel. The assessment does not exceed the reasonable'cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each parcel. The Board will conduct the public hearing on December 6, 2005 at 9:30 a.m., in the Board of Supervisors' Chambers, 651-Pine Street,Room 107,Martinez,California. The following paragraph provides the procedures for returning and tabulating the ballots. A copy of this Notice of Adoption of Resolution, a sealable ballot and the Engineer's Report has been sent to each of the property owners within the boundaries of the CSA. The ballot may be completed and mailed or hand delivered to Public Works Department,Attn: Teri Rie,255'Glacier Drive, Martinez,California 94553, or you may submit your ballot at the public hearing. You may submit, withdraw, or change your ballot at any time prior to the conclusion of the public testimony on the proposed assessment at the public hearing. Immediately before the Hearing, the Public Works Department shall tabulate the ballots. At the Hearing, the Board shall consider any objections or protests to the assessment and certify the tabulation of the ballots. The Board shall not impose the assessment if there is a majority protest.A majority protest exists if,upon conclusion of WCI30173850.2 the Hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. In tabulating the ballots,the ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property. Following the public hearing,the Board shall consider the adoption of the camas of votes for the CSA. Upon authorization of the assessment,the Board shall levy the authorized assessment on each parcel the first fiscal year following issuance of a building permit for each parcel. The total estimated budget for 2005 as set forth in the Engineer's report is$144,678. If the assessment is adopted,it is anticipated that each parcel you own will be assessed a maximum of$318(for single-family detached units), $253 (for single- family attached units),or$230(for apartment dwellings)per year,plus an annual adjustment to reflect the percentage change in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consumer Price Index. The assessment for a parcel will be levied beginning the first fiscal year after issuance of the building permit for that parcel. The assessment will continue to be levied in perpetuity. The Engineer's Report for the CSA was prepared by a registered engineer certified in the State of California, and describes in detail the reason for the assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated. The Engineer's Report specifically sets forth the yearly estimated budget, the total assessment that will be chargeable to the entire CSA,the proposed estimated assessments to be levied each year against each parcel of property, and a description of the method used in formulating the estimated assessment. A copy of the Engineer's Report is also available for inspection at the office of the Department of Public Works, 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez,California 94553 and at the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at 651 Pine Street,Martinez,California. Inquiries regarding the proposed assessment may be made by mail, Attention Teri Rie at Contra Costa County Department of Public Works,255 Glacier Drive,Martinez,CA 94553 or by phone at(925)313-2363 or(925)313-2191. WC130173850.2 EXHIBIT F Ballot'' Identification of Parcel. Record'Owner: Yes,;,I approve the proposed maximum annual benefit assessment described in the attachedNotice on the property described by the parcel numbers identified in this Ballot, No, I do not approve the proposed:maximum annual benefit assessment described in the attached Notice on the property described by the parcel numbers identified in this Ballot: Signature of Record Owner or Authorized Representative of the above-identified parcel(s) Mail or deliver;;sealed Ballot to: Contra Costa County Public Works Department' Attn: Teri Rie 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553 GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENG..EO WATER RESOURCES 1 N C O R P 4 C2 A T E D CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ENGINEER'S REPORT for TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (TIAD) ALAMO CREEKANTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MAY 1, 2005 2010 Crow Canyon Place•Suite 250•San Ramon,CA 94583-4634•(925)866-9000•Fax(925)866-0199 www.engeo.com EAIGEO INCORPORATED TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CERTIFICATION OF FILING...... ...... .. ... ..... .. ..... . ............................... I. INTRODUCTION.... ... ... ., ...... ... .. .. .......3 II. BACKGROUND... .... ., . ..... . ...3 IIL TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (TIAD)BOUNDARIES..3 IV. MARKET ANALYSIS ... ..... . ... .. ....... ... .... .....4 V. SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION ... .. ........ ..... . ...... ... . ................. .... ......5 VI. SERVICE LEVELS........,. ..,...... .......... . ........... ... .. . .. .............. . .. ...................5 VII. ASSESSMENT METHOD .............................. . ............... .............................................6 VIII. ASSESSMENT LIMIT BUDGET......... ... .... ... ........ ............. .. .. ........... ........ .6 FIGURE_1 —Approximate Tiad Boundary EXHIBIT A-Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties Tiad Budget EXHIBIT B -Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties Legal Description 4063.1.700.01 May 9,2005 EAGE ) INCORPORATED ENGINEER'S REPORT TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT(TIAD) ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES CERTIFICATION OF FILING ENGEO Incorporated makes this report for the proposed Transit Improvements Assessment District (TIAD) Board of Directors. As a County Service Area (CSA), the TIAD is intended to provide commuter transit service for the Alamo Creek and Intervening Properties ("Integrated Project") ,developments. The TIAD will have the ability to levy and collect assessments sufficient to pay for those services. This report consists of seven parts,as follows: I. INTRODUCTION II. BACKGROUND III. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT(TIAD)BOUNDARIES IV. MARKET ANALYSIS V. SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION VI. SERVICE LEVELS VII. ASSESSMENT METHOD VIII. ASSESSMENT LIMIT BUDGET 4063.1.700.01 May 9, 2005 1 EAGEO INCORPORATED The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer's Report. Date: 912.1 ''5 By: ENGEO Incorporated GE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report was filed on the day of Clerk of the Board Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties Transit Improvement Assessment District Contra Costa County,California I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report was approved and confirmed by the TIAL Board on the day of President of the Board Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties Transit Improvement Assessment District Contra Costa County, California APPROVED' 4063.1.700.01 May 9, 2005 EEO' INCORPORATED ENGINEER'S REPORT for TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT(TIAD) ALAMO CREEKANTERVENING PROPERTIES for the ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ASSESSMENT I. INTRODUCTION As a condition of approval, the creation of a County Service Area (CSA) consisting of commuter transit service is required for the Alamo Creek and Intervening Properties ("Integrated Project") projects. To comply with the CSA requirement, A Transit Improvement Assessment District (TIAD) will be established to provide funding for the implementation and operation of the proposed transit service, II. BACKGROUND The Integrated Project constitutes approximately 767 acres located south of Camino Tassajara between Hansen Lane and Finley Road in unincorporated Contra Costa County, California. The Alamo Creek project plan includes development of approximately 679 single-family residential units, 124 multi-family residential units, and 120 senior housing residential units. The Intervening Properties project plan includes approximately 377 single-family residential"units and 96 multi-family residential units. Both developments will include appurtenant amenities, including recreational facilities. III. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (TIAD)BOUNDARIES The boundaries for the TIAD are shown in the diagram attached'hereto as Figure 1. 4063.1.700.01 May 9, 2005 3 E1YGE0 INCORPORATED' IV. MARKT ANALYSIS Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) completed a Transit Improvements Study of the Integrated Project in'March 2005. The study acknowledged that a limited market for transit services and consequently a limited transit service is offered in the study area. The study opined that a latent demand for transit could be satisfied if a regular commuter service were provided. Given the size of the Integrated' Project and the workplace destination and commuting behavior of the adjacent census tracts as outlined by a census-based demographic analysis, a weekday rush-hour commuter' service would provide the greatest benefit of transit services under consideration. Specifically, the report recommended that the proposed transit service include the Walnut Creek Bay Area Rapid Transit(BART) station and Bishop Ranch business park as destinations. The desired level of service was based on an analysis of demand performed by WSA. Based on census information and a rider survey performed by BART in 1998, approximately 77 transit trips per day may be expected when the project development is completed. The transit trip total was calculated by WSA as follows; As presented in the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Integrated Project, 10,048 daily vehicle trips would be generated at the development. • Assuming an average vehicle occupancy of 1.05 persons per vehicle and a 92.5 percent vehicle mode share (automobiles constitute 92.5 percent of transit trips to and from the households), 13,338 person trips would be generated daily by the development. • Based on census information, 5.37 percent of commuter trips to and from adjacent census tracts used public transit (716 trips). • Approximately 97 percent of public transit trips used rail (assumed to be exclusive to BART; 694 trips). • Approximately 7 percent of BART riders at stations nearest to the project (Dublin/Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, Lafayette) used public transit to travel to and from the station (48 trips). • Approximately 4 percent of transit-based commuter trips used bus service as the primary means of transportation (29 trips). • Total bus demand (77 trips) includes the sum of transit trips to BART stations (48 trips) and bus trips to work (29 trips). 4063.1.700.01 May 9,2005 4 EEO INCORPORATED V. SERVICE IWLEMENTATION To offer service during early phases of construction commensurate with demand, WSA recommends a phased service implementation strategy for the TIAD. During the initial stages of service, WSA recommends that a volunteer-based vanpool service be ,provided. This service would be operated with "subscription and "checkpoint"-type route stops. As outlined:, the approximate yearly operating cost of the vanpool service is projected to be $69,000. This includes provisions to lease three vehicles, fuel, mechanical service, insurance, communications and a marketing allowance. If reasonable demand for commuter transit service is demonstrated as project construction progresses, the level of service of the TIAD would be expanded to include regularly-scheduled "airporter-style" mini=bus service. The, prescribed level of service includes four round trips during both the morning and evening rush-hour periods. For this service (assuming a typical operating cost of $80'per hour), an approximate operating budget of $357,000 is required; this includes the above items as well as the capitalized annual cost of purchasing three vehicles (assumes a service life of six years). The service may be operated by a private contractor or by Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA). If the service proves successful, it is envisioned that the service may be merged into full-scale County Connection service. In addition, transit service management and legal costs are anticipated to be approximately $15,000 per year. VI. SERVICE LEVELS' The TIAD provides the financial resources necessary for the implementation and operation of the proposed transit service, including assessment/levies and/or the issuance and servicing of bonds issued to finance any of the foregoing. 1. Acquisition (through purchase and/or lease) of fleet vehicles. 2 Regularly,scheduled and/or unanticipated fleet maintenance. 3. Construction and/or maintenance of bus stop shelters as necessary. 4 Selection of operating,subcontractor,either public or private'. 5. Maintenance of appropriate insurance coverage for facilities and vehicles. 6: Marketing of transit service. 7. Monitoring of ridership and service performance (e.g., loop time, on-time performance). 8.' Recommendations for expansion or contraction of transit service. 9. Preparation of annual TIAD budgets. 4063.1.700.01 May 9, 2005 5 EAIG'G INCORPORATED VII. ASSESSMENT METHOD The services described in Sections V and VI will be available to all residents within>the TIAD boundaries. The proposed service provides a benefit to all residents within the District. The District Engineer hereby finds that the properties within the District receive approximately equal special benefit from the service offered by the TIAD. As a result, the assessment is distributed among all residents within the TIAD. Residents of single-family units and multi-family units will all be assessed on an equal basis. Residents of senior housing will be provided with separate shuttle service not included within the scope of the TIAD and therefore will not be assessed; The total number of single-family ,and multi-family unit residents within the District is then divided into the annual District budget to develop the annual assessment amount. A financial analysis was performed to provide a framework for an operating budget for the proposed transit service. In preparation of the budget, several factors were considered including: • Level of Transit Service • Phasing of Service • Equal benefit (and equal assessment level)to residents based on projected resident population VIII. ASSESSMENT LIMIT-BUDGET Based on the estimated expenses for continuing operations provided by WSA, a budget was prepared for the purpose of estimating initial assessment levels (Exhibit A). In order to establish a reasonable reserve in the early years following formation of the TIAD, there will be an initial deferral of service; the"start-up„ vanpool service will begin uponissuance of the 300'l" building permit within the combined projects. If warranted by demand, an escalation of service will occur upon the issuance of the 600'h building permit. The District Engineer recommends an annual assessment (2005 dollars) of $107 per resident (senior housing residents excluded) to be levied in conjunction with the issuance of building permits as described in Section VII. Although the assessment has been calculated' on a`per resident basis, it will be assessed on a per residential unit basis. The table below presents estimated residents per dwelling based on dwelling type as determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) using 2000 Census data. These estimates will serve as the permanent basis for the assessment. 4063.1.700.01 May 9, 2005 EEO INCORPORATED TABLE 1—ESTIMATED RESIDENTS AND ASSESSMENT PER DWELLING DOLLING TYPE RESIDENTS ASSESSMENT PER UNIT PER UNIT(2006 DOLLARS) Single-family home, detached 2.97 $ 318 Single-family home, attached(townhome) 2.36 $ 253 Apartment.dwellings2.15 $ 230`' (Assume 10-19 a artments per structure) This assessment will escalate annually based on the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consumer Price Index. 4063.1.700.01 May 9,2005 7 1 1 f , r , y� a ..e.,e.....y..-1���7"'��P� gg B A i - u — r p Q � P �t _ 4 ; 3V '� CL s t 1 1-- a rl is (£ i 11' r j T y� g 0 0 z 0 4 m '031"od90OHl 030N3 !0 LN3SNOO NIL119M SS39dX3 3H1 1f10H11M 03Ld930X3 80 0310nO 39 11 AYW NON '43A30SI"M-SNY3A ANY A9 LNYd NI NO 310HM NI O3OftOO9439 36 ION A" INIMMOO S9LL 'O31Y90d800N1 030143 A9 60OZ 0 1NO18Adw H i mr mi I ii NE i m Hp H am MME' EMEW-11 a.4-1. .................. aamm am i Eli- i IN!Ili I M I Ii! Mi ®rl ll.mismol!; 1 1 Im i mom Nil. H aafflm la mj 110 owl I OEM BE is Ij H"ir MIMI am....... ME ME 111 ji 111. lowl I 11 Mi I -N HWE Ei -a-M M0, MOON o"i No Wi- ;IN I "PHIR MIN f W1.1 loss 111.11. ONE; MIN MEMO" IEEE in 1 R in Im a NO IN nilmilmmillimm Nil MEN M. Mi 1111 11 an I" :Myli Eli H nilalmi; -MOM N i H. H Nila- EEE' milill NONNI ME! Oil mi! ........ NO I I i HE W11 ............. .................... Mimi . ....... r 11111 111.IN limil I CCr*}�+ ' co 0 ' U7 rte- C C�! c N2 C'39! SO2 � T tt3 sf A t7CVp` N� t%3 to A Eta 6+3 6t3 69 �}69 69 69 Eta 69}619, 00 CIA N co ill ' 11- 0 ' m 'm N r, T- ; ' COCON tocosf m N U7 d h- N CO Ch C14 V) tt}. 6+9 6969696464696t}4403,60 to LO 0) � I � � � LO ,� co I r � c0 CICO CO tU r- N CR CA Q Q 6F! 69 6%<4 6963613.6%6%44 69 '"i CCC111 pp c }" 0 00) C7 o o>o 0 n. .- Ln N tY7 aT- Cc'7 0 co C(0-LO CtOo G�C9 tU ct (D cocrN 63 69.63-0%64 69 61).69 Q:3 69 6+3 ter► C LO co iV It CC3 CS et *- CSS L r ' o 06 CLl iEi {} 69 6%Et}619.6%69 Eta 64 69 to LLI (D Lo 0 a. H'S UJ m' G C f1 '• � "'� U, 3 O.N ..� to w 04 04 ft "_ W ui co m co ;grit w C � � + ,� W t C3 tJ z cc 2 0 t3 t3 0 ,36 LoCY Oi is N mum-Lip. MEMO?. IN NMI I NO MEN Mr, imMooll NO ONE! 01" i m r ®r ............mu. Ii®r. e IEEE il!ll-, MIMI 1011111111 IN loll Ev" Is Nil 1 11 loll 11 Bie INN ................ Fr ........... I IN! JONI I he HR� i H MIMI n IMMUN IBM! I H-110".111-111, in i in ON 1 PON! .......... U g-il Bl imp ME ii MIDE1. OEM= :......... ......:;r N I MI I INN NO Elill......... El i4 jli!- .......... ...... .. E'U"M ...I ........ . ........... ........... ..... ennui!" .......... ... ......... ............I"iiii...!!.."i'.�.,..I,.....Iii.rr�iii.,�".�,�.........�"N...."ilI "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA." ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "A" ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY, SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEING A PORTION OF SECTIONS 4, 5 AND 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, AND A PORTION OF SECTIONS 32 AND 33, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1, EAST, MOUNT DIABL.O BASE AND MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SUB-PARCEL 1 (ALAMO CREEK) BEGINNING AT THE POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 73018'43"WEST 428.94 FEET FROM A STANDARD STREET MONUMENT IN THE INTERSECTION OF BLACKHAWK DRIVE AND CAMINO TASSAJARA, THE CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM 1983 DATUM COORDINATE N 2281183.90, E 6438844.32, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1950.21 FEET, A RADIAL LINE'TO'SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 12059'15" WEST; THENCE 1) EASTERLY 492.41 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14028'00", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 491.10 FEET; THENCE 2) SOUTH 88041'01 EAST 918.99 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1950.20, THENCE 3) EASTERLY 187.74 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH.A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5030'56", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 187.67 FEET; THENCE 4) NORTH 01°28'35" EAST 14.90 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NOW TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH'HAVING A RADIUS OF 2296.66 FEET,A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 05012'56" EAST; THENCE 5) EASTERLY 214.43 FEET ALONG'THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5020'58" A CHORD DISTANCE OF 214.35 FEET; THENCE 6) SOUTH 79°26'06" EAST 129`.83 FEET; THENCE 7) NORTH 78°02'16"WEST 347.00 FEET; THENCE 8) NORTH 01028'35" EAST 25.42 FEET; THENCE 9) SOUTH 78°02'16" EAST 840.37 FEET; THENCE 10) SOUTH 05°33'28" EAST 1146.07 FEET; THENCE 11) SOUTH 02°14'27"WEST 16160.66 FEET; THENCE' 12) SOUTH 72°51'09" EAST 248.70 FEET; THENCE 13)SOUTH 19°55'23" WEST 485.76"FEET; THENCE 14} SOUTH 19°04'32" EAST 310.76 FEET; THENCE 15) SOUTH 07028'37" WEST 231.10 FEET; THENCE 16)'SOUTH 14°22'57" EAST 352.47 FEET THENCE "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA:" AL.AMO CREEK 1 INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 17) SOUTH 13°32'28"WEST 520,13 FEET; THENCE 18) SOUTH 37°0900"WEST 220.00 FEET; THENCE 19) SOUTH 66°45'00" WEST 552.17 FEET;THENCE 20) SOUTH 07°30'00" EAST 160.52 FEET; THENCE 21) SOUTH 05°30'00" WEST 1330.80 FEET; THENCE 22) NORTH 71°34'36" WEST 133.16 FEET; THENCE 23) SOUTH 67°50'49'WEST 63.56 FEET; THENCE 24) SOUTH 44°21'38" WEST 305.22 FEET; THENCE 25) NORTH 05°59'20" EAST 376.19 FEET; THENCE 26) NORTH 88°49'33" WEST 3897.41 FEET; THENCE 27)'NORTH 00°49'06" EAST 2652.17 FEET; THENCE 28) NORTH 89001'17"WEST 247.65 FEET;;THENCE 29) NORTH 32°49'40" EAST 867.88 FEET;THENCE 30) SOUTH 90°00'00" EAST 155.88 FEET; THENCE 31) NORTH 33°02'46" EAST 252.87 FEET;THENCE 32) NORTH 75°34'33" EAST 378.03 FEET; THENCE 33) NORTH 45°01'27" EAST 353.57 FEET; THENCE 34} NORTH 48°50'17" EAST 346.67 FEET,THENCE 35) NORTH 2302647" EAST 355.30 FEET; THENCE 36} NORTH 03°12'08" EAST 728.98 FEET; THENCE 37) NORTH 42°36'00" EAST 313.12 FEET; THENCE 38) NORTH 04°56'23" EAST 193.13 FEET; THENCE 39}`NORTH 45°07'49" WEST 25.69 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 522.14 FEET, A RADIAL. LINE. TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 84047'59" EAST; THENCE 40} NORTHERLY 144.80 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15053'21", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 144.34 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 462.1`1 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 68°54'38" WEST; THENCE 41) NORTHERLY 134.34 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH' A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16039'23", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 133.87 FEET; THENCE: 42) NORTH 04°25'59" WEST 225.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 90.00 FEET; THENCE 43) EASTERLY 136.40 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 86050'02", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 123.7:1 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE' CONCAVE TO THE NORTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 2083.05, A RADIAD LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 07035'57" EAST; THENCE 44) EASTERLY 216.616 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A' CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5057'34", A CHORD DISTANCE'OF 216.56 FEET, THENCE 45) NORTH 76.26'29" EAST 402.94 FEET; THENCE "INTEGRATED PROJECTTRANSIT CSA." ALAMO CREEK 1 INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 46) NORTH 03°16'26" EAST 34.21 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUB-PARCEL 2 (INTERVENING PROPERTIES) BEGINNING AT THE WEST % CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, THE CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATION SYSTEM 1983 DATUM COORDINATE IS N'2,284,370.68, E 6,488,799.75; THENCE`FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING 1) NORTH 01012'32"'EAST 1693.82 FEET 2) NORTH 01012'32" EAST 882.54 FEET; THENCE 3) FORTH 00651'07" EAST 657.98 FEET THENCE 4) SOUTH 89608'53"'EAST 277.44 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 45.00 FEET; THENCE 5) EASTERLY 55.88 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 71008'48", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 52.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH` HAWING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 33003'22" WEST;THENCE 6) EASTERLY"11.24'FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32012'15", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 11.09 FEET; THENCE 7) SOUTH 8960853" EAST 102.50 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 640.00 FEET; THENCE 8) EASTERLY 102.24 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH'A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09009'11", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 102.13 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 341.29 FEET,'A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE SEARS SOUTH 0100018" WEST; THENCE 9) EASTERLY 170.55 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH'A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28037'57", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 168.78 FEET; THENCE 10) NORTH 71-22'20" EAST 215.17 FEET;THENCE 11)NORTH 26°22'20" EAST 28.28 FEET; THENCE 12) NORTH 18°37'40" WEST 50.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 239.00 FEET; THENCE 13) NORTHERLY 87.22 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20054'31", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 86.73 FEET; THENCE 14) NORTH 02°"16'51" EAST 466.15 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A'RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE 15)NORTHWESTERLY 31.49 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90014'59", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 28.34 FEET; THENCE "INTEGRATED PROJECTTRANSIT CA." ALAMO CREEK f INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 16)SOUTH 87°5758' EAST 46.24 FEET; THENCE 17) NORTH 00°51'07" EAST 50.01 FEET; THENCE 18) SOUTH 87°5758" EAST 338.35 FEET; THENCE 19) SOUTH 74°24'09" EAST 555.01 FEET; THENCE 20) SOUTH 10°50'35"WEST 330.93 FEET; THENCE 21) SOUTH 12035'35" EAST 1024.98 FEET; THENCE 22) SOUTH 10°2823" WEST 860.58 FEET;THENCE 23) SOUTH 10°28'23" WEST 567.73 FEET;THENCE 24) SOUTH 32°49'40' WEST 1332.65 FEET; THENCE 25) NORTH 88°58'18" WEST 1063.07 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING'. CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 756.12 ACRES'MORE OR LESS EXHIBITS "B"AND "C" ATTACHED, AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE APART HEREOF. A.P.N.'S 206-020-033, 206-190-001, 002, 003, 005 & 006, 206-220-001, 002, 003 AND 004 AND 206-030-23, 25, 26, 27, 28 & 33, 35 AND 206-020-017, I ifi� NO. 633 �r a OD Cr' ,�,N° TAssA� o A-4 INp rASSAJAR,g, 0 —J tt 1 'Z a f(*t rn 5n� rn m , cn rn N m ' A w Ch 0) zor m 31 J'QO��XQ � "bb CA 0500 o4ONC;uom? p"i0Cj ZC rA� =4# °G7 r!Ti ♦ --1 4 ` t oma ua3+p N:D Ob 4� �.« Z a d moa 33N3W 1 J W _ ate.. > SHADOW CREEK OR.^P p 9LACKHAW DRIVE ^' CJ n CD SEE\ �" �-P (D, 10 Lot � c� � "'+�'�`+► cQ fl C 11 "0 C�© 1 0h�b�� R" gcr'1''�+4 .y ^r \•.,.�,.�N '�" \ � 2\ E �: nom+ 0. z y 0 WOOOUp s \ @ () ` LA 00 CIO 1\ \ro f cs� ' ��% ✓ p -13 ( 7O tA as C? {— S Z?. 1407 061. 00stO W rz 11G !t n `A c z 00,.bo LA zo $» N x fl flflt4 "''a► '' 'y c» w 1 ,.+. N 7134'36" W J33,16'@ 5 67"50`49" W 63 5603 ,. .. 44"21'3$" W 305.22' 3 ry,, ry ♦y 0 s+ .. XM T " PLAT MAP SU"ARCEL 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 400 0 200 400 No ' i6d0 SCALE 1"=400' ( IN FEET EXIST. CAMINO TASSAJARA-- S 05-3312Binch = goo ft.' RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC " E 1146.07' 'l0 S 78'02'16" E 840.37' S 79°26'06" E 129.83' cam' R=2296.66' N 78"02'16" W 347.00' --I--214:43' p=05'X#'58" C=214.35' N 01`28'3'5" E 25.42' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N 01.28'35" E 14.90' SUB, PAROL 1 R=1950.20' L=187.74' A=05'30'56" C=187.67' 206-030-023 S 88"41 '01" E 918,99'' 206--030- I 206-030-0261027 � N 00"3259" W 22:91' I ' N11°11'17 W C _ -- ` 73°18'43" E 428.94 (TIE TO MON. 288.51' � � � _ �I14A �`� 206--030--025 R=1950.21' .5g' j L=492.41} N LS-=14 8 00 C=491.10' "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT GSA" 3°16'26„ E x.18.08' 3C} ALAMO CREEK / INTERVENING PROPERTIES N 0 CONTFA COSTA COUNY CALIFORNIA A.P.N. S 206-030-23,2t,26,27,28,33,35 & 206-W-190-001,002,003,005,006 & 206--220--0071,002,003 004 & 223=-020-017(POR) APRIL 17, 2€705 SHEET 3 OF 6 98-1009-11 8381-LAFCO.DW EXHIBIT "B PLAT MAP SUB-PARCEL. 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 400 0' 200 400 8ot1 1600 SCALE ''1"=800' IN FES } 2 inch = 800 ft. EXIST. CAMINO TASAJ'ARA--.r. RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC �.. 1146.07' S 05-3312B" S 78°02'16" E 840.37' -PARCEL 1 SUB S 79°26'06" E 129.83' �6 R=22/(96/x.66' 5 L=214,43' N 78°02'16" W 3.47.00' p_05`20'58" C=214.,35' N 05.1 56 N 01 '28'35" E 25.42' "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA" ALAMO CREEK f INTERVENING ' PROPERTIES N 01 °28'35" E 14.90 CONTRA COSTA COUNY CALIFORNIA A.P:N.'S 206-030-23,25,26,27,28,33,35' 206-190-001,002,003,005,006 & 206-220--001,002,003 004: +& 223--020--017POR} R=1950.20' APRIL 17, 2005 U3 L=187.74' Z1=05*30'56 SSOCIATES kw- C=491.10' 1440 Morio Lona, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, California 84595 SHEET 4 OF 6 98-1009-11 Phone: (825) 932-6868 Fox: (925) 932-0916 83$1-LAFC{).D11V(s Ln SHADOW CREEK DR. HANSEN LN. N 2,288.384.3 4 $7<57' >, E 6,438,822. 9' r CAMI O TASSAJARA 5II � 338,35 1g 090* c°; r r!' Z Ln X 10 Ln � -i I� U) >' LA 0) tiJ � LALA Z CASABLANCA 1 19 �'� p cnLTI 062OD �- o 063 j; 120 L4 m GERBERA ST rU a �' tx. � Z+ �= Z APN 01 p i p C)0"00�►Z Z , 206-490 01 "' , —"1 �' rq 013 -V r� 2 "-QL400mI oo�ma Sox rriAPN Ln 10 O11 � c4'+ C1t oNt:ia�AQ' 206-490 011? C� o \ °� + V yCD "" I c) (^� 205-450 011 !b \ ci7 `` N �'` CLClC=7G C7 D APN 12 CJ► q?' cs `� ru `? / t!lN�, �,C?C7-AZ 013 '�z f o rn z G� (jr 14 000"OZ> CD (0 206-450- 15 \ --# APN \ o I l °' Ch Gt ., t7��yC7! -1 N APN \ I / V `" 7 cn 206-140-029 I � , APN `E \ rn C!'f , 206-140-017 C7 i Gt R° APN 206-140-006 IU *z 1 v rn IT1 N \ N p� APN cn d N. \ 0 tv'�'. 206-140-012 W ' ;pa- \ Cb Mr`` a ` C Ij APN _. CP CS \ � {^j'�•' o 206-140-020 \\ \ LQ L"hi N 88`58`18" W 1063.07' 25 :to r*r z PDCor, om»p -Z rn as vc<ca ! �CD U+IJD O I G1 COE EXHIBIT �� �� G13 PLAT MAP SUB-P CEL 2' "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA,° ALAMO CREEK / INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTFA COSTA COUI`IY CALIFORNIA A.P.N. S 206-03t --23,21 26 27,28,33,35 8c 205--190--001,002,003,605,006 & 206-220--001,002,003 004 & 223-020'--017POR APRIL 17, 2005' 200 0 700 200 400 r,.,Za Uj gym_ GRAPHIC SCALE'' (A o p CID OD w ( IN FEET } I inch w 200 ft. o-J 00 Llo°''t" Im L4 to Co �Co N 03'19'33" w CAMINO TASSAJARA 37.66'(TIE TO CL) -Oow y Mr.r.rri.�n.. �rE 587'57'58"E 889.59' (TIE) Z�=90'14'49" rn z tow 557 ' 16 87' '58"E 46.24' R=20.00'' '=. L=31.49 LA CD PD V- C=28.34' 15 m o CV Co CEJ to Z st -' ' L�-32'12'15'. L1=20'54'31" R=239.00' APNO R=20,00' L=87.22' 206-480-025 r- L=11.24 A=28"37'57" C=86.73' 13 C=11.(39' '�' R=341.29' 026 Z S89'08'53"E ' L=170.55' Ni8'37'40"W 027 ` C1 102.50' o C=168.78' 50.55' 12 020 ( 5� , 1� '-� N26`22'20"E 118 277.44' 4 ,� t�0.� 28.28' 11 CASABLANCA 5T 589'08'53"E rn 119 ir'- d =71'08,48" ��fi/�[� 1=0+9*09''111" L4 R=45.00' ``1J =640.00' v 062 L=55.88' L=102.24' w "�•' C=52.36 ) C=102.1.3' co (14 SHEET 6 OF '6