Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 01172006 - SD.4
SD. ...... ,oF Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Costa la FROM: MAURICE M. SHIU, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR rA COUK� County DATE: January 17, 2006 SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution No. 2006/ oZ) establishing "County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit)," accepting canvass of votes, confirming assessment, authorizing the levy and collection of the assessment for the territory within the CSA, and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to arrange with the Auditor-Controller's office for a separate fund for CSA T-1, Danville area. (Developer Fees) (District III) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT Resolution No. 2006/ establishing "County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit)" (CSA), accepting canvass of votes, confirming assessment, authorizing the levy and collection of the assessment for the territory within the CSA, and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to arrange with the Auditor- Controller's office for a separate fund for CSA T-1, Danville area. (Developer Fees) (District III) 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 General Fund or taxpayers outside of the Integrated Project. Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE OPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BO R ON �•-(7- APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED O HER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT).UnVJ ) AYES: NOES: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct ABSENT: ABSTAIN: copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Orig. Div: Public Works (Engineering Services) Contact: Teri Rie (313-2363) G:\GrpData\EngSvc\BO\2006\01-17\Transit CSA.DOC cc: County Administrator ATTESTED- . County Counsel JOHN SW TN BO CLE K and T. Rie, Eng Svc. COUNTY A INIST R CSA File WC/30174926.3 J SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution No. 2006/ establishing "County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit)," accepting canvass of votes, confirming assessment, authorizing the levy and collection of the assessment for the territory within the CSA, and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to arrange with the Auditor-Controller's office for a separate fund for CSA T-1, Danville area. (Developer Fees) (District III) DATE: January 17, 2006 PAGE: 2 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND BACKGROUND: As part of the approval process for the Alamo Creek project and the Intervening Properties/Remaining Intervening Properties project (collectively, Integrated Project), 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 CSA. 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 CSA. In order to implement the conditions of approval and the Settlement Agreement, the developers and the County have been working diligently to establish a county service area. Pursuant to Government Code sections 25210.3a and 25210.13, on June 14, 2005, the County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2005/357, which initiated LAFCO proceedings and sought LAFCO approval for the formation of the CSA. On September 14, 2005, LAFCO adopted Resolution No. 05-15, which approved formation of the CSA. On October 18, 2005, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2005/674, declaring its intention to establish the CSA. 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. Accordingly, in Resolution No. 2005/674, the Board also declared its intention to impose an assessment. A hearing date was originally fixed for December 6, 2005 to consider any protests against the CSA formation or the assessment. To ensure that proper notice was given to all record owners of territory within the CSA in accordance with Article XIII(D) of the California Constitution, the hearing was rescheduled to January 17, 2006. By adopting the Resolution, the Board will be taking the final 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. WCl30174926.3 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Resolution on January 17, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Uilkema,Piepho,DeSaulnier,Glover and Gioia NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -- -- �----- ---- - ------- - -- RFsni UTION NA 20061 � SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution No. 2006/ ,711 establishing "County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit)," accepting canvass of votes, confirming assessment, authorizing the levy and collection of the assessment for the territory within the CSA, and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to arrange with the Auditor-Controller's office for a separate fund for CSA T-1, Danville area. (Developer Fees) (District III) RECITALS: A. As part of the approval process for the Alamo Creek project and the Intervening Properties/Remaining Intervening Properties project (collectively, Integrated Project), 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 CSA. Formation of a CSA will therefore implement the conditions of approval and the Settlement Agreement, and therefore has been pursued by the County and the developers. C. 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 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, which approved formation of the CSA. D. A written request by two members has been filed with the Board to establish the CSA, 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. Article XIII(D) of the California Constitution imposes numerous requirements for the levy and collection of said assessment. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an Orig. Div: Public Works (Engineering Services) action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Contact: Teri Rie(313-2363) Supervisors on the date shown. G:\GrpData\EngSvc\BO\2006\01-17\Transit CSA.DOC cc: County Administrator ATTESTED 'y � w County Counsel T. Rie, Eng Svc. JOHN SW EN, Clerkthe oard of Supervisors CSA File and County dmimstrat _:f Resolution No. 200612-1 By. ,Deputy W C/30174926.3 SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution No. 2006/ Al establishing "County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit)," accepting canvass of votes, confirming assessment, authorizing the levy and collection of the assessment for the territory within the CSA, and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to arrange with the Auditor-Controller's office for a separate fund for CSA T-1, Danville area. (Developer Fees) (District III) DATE: January 17, 2006 PAGE: 2 F. On October 18, 2005, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2005/674, declaring its intention to establish the CSA and its intention to impose an assessment on properties within the CSA, and originally fixed a hearing on December 6, 2005 to consider .any objections to CSA formation or the assessment. To ensure that proper notice was given to all record owners of territory within the CSA in accordance with Article XIII(D) of the California Constitution, the hearing was rescheduled to January 17, 2006. G. Resolution No. 2005/674 declares the Board's intention, consistent with the requirements of Article XIII(D) of the California Constitution, to order that the costs and expenses of maintaining and operating the transit service provided by the CSA, as described in the report entitled, "Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties Transit Improvements Study: Final Report," be assessed against those parcels within the CSA. H. 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 sets forth the purpose of the CSA, the estimated budget, the total assessment that will be chargeable to the territory within the 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. I. Resolution No. 2005/674 directs the Public Works Director, or designee, to deliver all the ballots received from record owners to the Board prior to the start of the hearing. That Resolution states that the Board shall then consider all protests against the proposed assessment and tabulate the ballots. In tabulating the ballots, they shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation on the affected property. The Board shall not impose the assessment if there is a majority protest. If there is no majority protest, the Board shall authorize the assessment. The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, RESOLVES AND ORDERS THAT: 1. The Public Works Director, or designee, provided notice of the public hearing described above in accordance with Government Code section 25210.16 and Article XIII(D), Section 4 of the California Constitution. 2. A public hearing was held before the Board on January 17, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in order to hear and consider any objections to the establishment of "County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit)" (CSA) and any protests regarding the related assessment. 3. The Board finds and determines that the transit services to be provided by the CSA are extended county services under Government Code section 25210.4. 4. The Board declares the CSA is hereby finally established without an election. The boundaries of the CSA are to include that certain real property more particularly described in attached Exhibit 1 and depicted in attached Exhibit 2. The types of services to be provided by the CSA are described in the report entitled, "Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties Transit Improvements Study: Final Report" (March 2005), attached as Exhibit 3. WC/30174926.3 r SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution No. 2006/ establishing "County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit)," accepting canvass of votes, confirming assessment, and authorizing the levy and collection of the assessment for the territory within the CSA, and authorizing the Public Works Director, or designee, to arrange with the Auditor-Controller's office for a separate fund for CSA T-1, Danville area. (Developer Fees) (District III) DATE: January 17, 2006 PAGE: 3 5. At the hearing, the Director of Public Works, or designee, delivered to the Board all ballots received from all record owners of territory within the CSA. At the hearing, the Public Works Director, or designee, tabulated the sealed ballots and weighted them according to the proportional financial obligation on the affected property. 6. The Board accepts the canvass of votes from the Public Works Director, which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 4,.showing the benefit assessment passed unanimously. 7. Based upon the tabulation of the ballots, the Board finds that there is not a majority protest. Therefore, the Board is authorized to levy the proposed assessment pursuant to Article XIII(D), Section 4 of the California Constitution. 8. The Board further confirms the assessment, as set forth in the Engineer's Report (attached as Exhibit 5), and orders that the amount of the assessment against each parcel of the territory within the CSA shall be as provided in the Engineer's Report. 9. The Board further orders that the amounts set forth in the Engineer's Report (including an annual adjustment to reflect the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index over the previous twelve month period) shall be assessed against each parcel of territory within the CSA at the time the County issues a residential building permit and for subsequent fiscal years. 10. The Board further orders that the assessment shall be levied and collected in the following manner: (a) The Public Works Director, or designee, shall cause to be recorded a Notice of Assessment, in substantially the form as attached Exhibit 6, as provided for in Section 3114 of the California Streets and Highway Code, whereupon the assessment shall attach as a lien upon the property. (b) Thereafter, the assessment shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner as general taxes on real property within the CSA are payable. (c) All funds generated by the assessment, and all interest earned on the assessment, shall be segregated and deposited in a separate account for the exclusive benefit of the CSA, and shall not be deemed at any time to constitute funds credited to the County treasury. 11. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. W C/30174926.3 OFFICIAL PROPERTY OWNER BALLOT COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT) VYes, I SUPPORT the formation of County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit) and agree to the maximum annual assessment rate of$318.00 per unit(for Single-Family, Detached); $253.00 per unit (for Single- Family, Attached) or $230.00 per unit(for Apartments),which includes an allowance for annual increases due to the change in the Consumer Price Index increase (minimum of 2%). ❑ No,.I OPPOSE the formation of County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit) and agree to the annual assessment rate of$318.00 per unit(for Single-Family,Detached); $253.00 per unit (for Single-Family, Attached) or $230.00 per unit (for Apartments),which includes an allowance for annual increases due to the change in the Consumer Price Index increase (minimum of 2%). Property Owner Name(s): KB Home South Bay, Inc. a California corporation Attn:Jeff McMullen Property Address or Description: Subdivision(s) 8331—Intervening Properties Project off of Camino Tassajara Assessors Parcel Number(s): Portions of 206-020-088 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am the legal property owner and/or person entitled to execute this ballot for the property shown above in these proceedings. Dated: 11 o /o(a Signa ure ,•�,, ? t'✓I c t7l,,(lam Printed Name of'Property Owner/Representative Once you have voted and signed this ballot,please place the ballot in the enclosed pre-paid,self-addressed return envelope.Your ballot will not be counted if you have not voted, signed the ballot,sealed the envelope and mailed or delivered it to Contra Costa County,Attn:Teri Rie located at 255 Glacier Drive,Martinez,CA 94553.All ballots must be received prior to the conclusion of the public input portion of the Public Hearing, which will be held on January 17,2006,starting at 9:30 a.m.,at the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Chambers,651 Pine Street,Martinez,CA. ti OFFICIAL PROPERTY OWNER BALLOT COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT) Yes, I SUPPORT the formation of County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit) and agree to the maximum annual assessment rate of$318.00 per unit(for Single-Family, Detached); $253.00 per unit(for Single- Family, Attached) or$230.00 per unit(for Apartments), which includes an allowance for annual increases due to the change in the Consumer Price Index increase (minimum of 2%). ❑ No I OPPOSE the formation of County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit) and agree to the annual assessment rate of$318.00 per unit (for Single-Family, Detached); $253.00 per unit (for Single-Family, Attached) or$230.00 per unit (for Apartments), which includes an allowance for annual increases due to the change in the Consumer Price Index increase (minimum of 2%). Property Owner Name(s): Regent Land Investment, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company by:Stark Onshore Management, LLC Its managing member Attn:Jeff Dinkin Property Address or Description: Subdivision(s)8331—Intervening Properties Project off of Camino Tassajara Assessors Parcel Number(s): portions of 206-220-003 portions of 206-220-004 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am the legal property owner and/or person entitled to execute this ballot for the property shown above in these proceedings. Dated: Signature Joseph J: Printed 14ame of Property Owner/Representative Once you have voted and signed this ballot,please place the ballot in the enclosed pre-paid,self-addressed return envelope. Your ballot will not be counted if you have not voted,signed the ballot,sealed the envelope and mailed or delivered it to Contra Costa County,Attn: Teri Ric located at 255 Glacier Drive,Martinez,CA 94553.All ballots must be received prior to the conclusion of the public input portion of the Public Hearing,which will be held on January 17,2006,starting at 9:30 a.m.,at the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Chambers,651 Pine Street,Martinez,CA. OFFICIAL PROPERTY OWNER BALLOT COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT) Yes, I SUPPORT the formation of County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit) and agree to the maximum annual assessment rate of$318.00 per unit (for Single-Family, Detached); $253.00 per unit(for Single- Family, Attached) or$230.00 per unit (for Apartments), which includes an allowance for annual increases due to the change in the Consumer Price Index increase (minimum of 2%). ❑ No, I OPPOSE the formation of County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit) and do not agree to the annual assessment rate of$318.00 per unit (for Single-Family, Detached); $253.00 per unit (for Single-Family, Attached)or $230.00 per unit (for Apartments), which includes an allowance for armual increases due to the change in the Consumer Price Index increase (minimum of 2%). Property Owner Name(s): Contra Costa Re Investors LLC, Attn: Jeff Lawrence Property Address or Description: Subdivision(s) 8331 (96 apartment units) Intervening Properties off of Camino Tassajara Assessors Parcel Number(s): 206-020-089 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am the legal property owner and/or person entitled to execute this ballot for the property shown above in these proceedings. Dated: D 5 Si 117 re ���r ►�,A UJB►�� - � , F'. Printed Name of Property Owner/Representative Once you,have voted and signed this ballot,please place the ballot in the enclosed pre-paid, self-addressed return envelope. Your ballot will not be counted if you have not voted, signed the ballot, sealed the envelope and mailed or delivered it to Contra Costa County, Attn: Teri Rie located at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553. All ballots must be received prior to the conclusion of the public input portion of the Public Hearing, which will be held on January 10, 2006, starting at 9:30 a.m., at the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA. W C/30175185.1 OFFICIAL PROPERTY OWNER BALLOT COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT) /Yes, I SUPPORT the formation of County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit and agree to the maximum annual assessment rate of$318.00 per unit (for Single-Family, Detached); $253.00 per unit (for Single- Family, Attached) or $230.00 per unit.(for Apartments), which includes an allowance for annual increases due to the change in the Consumer Price Index increase (minimum of 2%). ❑ No I OPPOSE the formation of County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit) and agree to th annual assessment rate of$318.00 per unit(for Single-Family,Detached); $253.00 per unit(for Single-Family, Attached) or$230.00 per unit (for Apartments), which includes an allowance for annual increases due to the change in the Consumer Price Index increase (minimum of 2%). Property Owner Name(s): Lennar Homes of California, Inc. a California corporation Attn: Dale Billy Property Address or Description: Subdivision(s) 8331—Intervening_Properties Project off of Camino Tassajara Assessors Parcel Number(s): Portions of 206-020-088 Portions of 206-190-001 Portions of 206-190-005 Portions of 206-190-006 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am the legal property owner and/or person entitled o execute this ballot for the property shown above in 7se proceedings. Dated: d— O v Signature �3 �Z_Z' Printed Name of Property Owner/Rep esentative Once you have voted and signed this ballot,please place the ballot in the enclosed pre-paid, self-addressed return envelope.Your ballot will not be counted if you have not voted,signed the ballot, sealed the envelope and mailed or delivered it to Contra Costa County,Attn: Teri Rie located at 255 Glacier Drive,Martinez,CA 94553.All ballots must be received prior to the conclusion of the public input portion of the Public Hearing, which will be held on January 17,2006,starting at 9:30 a.m., at the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Chambers,651 Pine Street,Martinez,CA. OFFICIAL PROPERTY OWNER BALLOT COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT) Yes, I SUPPORT the formation of County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit) and agree to the maximum annual VVV assessment rate of$318.00 per unit(for Single-Family, Detached); $253.00 per unit(for Single-Family, Attached) or$230.00 per unit(for Apartments), which includes an allowance for annual increases due to the change in the Consumer Price Index increase(minimum of 2%). ❑ No,I OPPOSE the formation of County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit) and do not agree to the annual assessment rate of$318.00 per unit(for Single-Family,Detached); $253.00 per unit(for Single-Family, Attached) or$230.00 per unit(for Apartments),which includes an allowance for annual increases due to the change in the Consumer Price Index increase (minimum of 2%). Property Owner Name(s): Shapell Industries, Inc., Attn: Claris Truebridge Property Address or Description: Subdivision(s) 8381 and 8382 -Alamo Creek Project off of Canaino Tassajara Assessors Parcel Number(s): 206-030-23 206-030-25 206-030-28 206-030-33 206-030-40 206-030-41 206-030-42 223-020-19 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am the legal property owner and/or person entitled to execute this ballot for the property shown above in these proceedings. Dated: // 0,51 0ature Printed Name of Property Owner/Representative Once you have voted and signed this ballot,please place the ballot in the enclosed pre-paid, self-addressed return envelope. Your ballot will not be counted if you have not voted, signed the ballot, sealed the envelope and mailed or delivered it to Contra Costa County, Attn: Teri Rie located at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553. All ballots must be received prior to the conclusion of the public input portion of the Public Hearing, which will be held on January 10, 2006, starting at 9:30 a.m., at the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA. W C/30175195.1 OFFICIAL PROPERTY OWNER BALLOT COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-.l (PUBLIC TRANSIT) Yes, I SUPPORT the formation of County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit) and agree to the maximum annual assessment rate of$318.00 per unit(for Single-Family, Detached); $253.00 per unit (for Single- Family, Attached) or $230.00 per unit (for Apartments), which includes an allowance for annual increases due to the change in the Consumer Price Index increase (minimum of 2%). ❑ No, I OPPOSE the formation of County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit) and do not agree to the annual assessment rate of$318.00 per unit (for Single-Family, Detached); $253.00 per unit (for Single-Family, Attached) or $230.00 per unit(for Apartments), which includes an allowance for annual increases due to the change in the Consumer Price Index increase (minimum of 2%). Property Owner Naine(s): Ponderosa Homes II, Inc. -Attn: Jeff Schroeder Property Address or Description: Subdivision(s) 8381 and 8382 -Alamo Creek Project off of Canino Tassajara Assessors Parcel Number(s): 206-030-26 206-030-27 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am the legal property owner and/or person entitled to execute this ballot for the property shown above in these proceedings. Dated: 17-4Z0.5- Sigi Printed Nam of Property Owner/Representative Once you have voted and signed this ballot, please place the ballot in the enclosed pre-paid, self-addressed return envelope. Your ballot will not be counted if you have not voted, signed the ballot, sealed the envelope and mailed or delivered it to Contra Costa County, Attn: Teri Rie located at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553. All ballots must be received prior to the conclusion of the public input portion of the Public Hearing, which will be held on January 10, 2006, starting at 9:30 a.m., at the Contra Costa County:Board of Supervisors Chambers,651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA. W C/30175196.1 OFFICIAL PROPERTY OWNER BALLOT COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT) Yes, I SUPPORT the formation of County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit)and agree to the maximum annual assessment rate of$318.00 per unit (for Single-Family, Detached); $253.00 per unit(for Single- Family, Attached) or $230.00 per unit(for Apartments), which includes an allowance for annual increases due to the change in the Consumer Price Index increase (minimum of 2%). ❑ No I OPPOSE the formation of County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit) and agree to the annual assessment rate of$318.00 per unit (for Single-Family,Detached); $253.00 per unit(for Single-Family, Attached) or $230.00:per.unit(for Apartments), which includes an allowance for annual increases due to the change in the Consumer Price Index increase (minimum of 2%). Property Owner Name(s): Danville Tassajara Partners, LLC a Delaware limited liability company, By Lennar Homes of California,Inc., a California corporation, member and Manager—Attn:Steven Jones Property Address or Description: Subdivision(s) 8331—Intervening Properties Project off of Camino Tassajara Assessors Parcel Number(s): 206-020-088 206-020-089 206-020-090 206-190-001 206-190-002 206-190-005 206-190-006 206-220-002 206-220-003 206-220-004 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am the legal property owner and/or person entitled to execute this ballot for the property shown -bove i these proceedings. Dated: O OD V, VI ! PP Si t ,JDDy' tt _ Printed Name of Property Owner/Representative Once you have voted and signed this ballot,please place the ballot in the enclosed pre-paid, self-addressed return envelope.Your ballot will not be counted if you have not voted,signed the ballot,sealed the envelope and mailed or delivered it to Contra Costa County, Attn: Teri Rie located at 255 Glacier Drive,Martinez,CA 94553.All ballots must be received prior to the conclusion of the public input portion of the Public Hearing,which will be held on January 17,2006,starting at 9:30 a.m.,at the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Chambers,651 Pine Street,Martinez,CA. WC/30175197.1 EXHIBIT 'I Legal Description of Property within CSA WC/30174926.3 EXHIBIT 2 Depiction of Property within CSA W C/30174926.3 EXHIBIT 3 "Alamo Creek/intervening Properties Transit Improvements Study: Final Report" (March 2005) W C/30174926.3 EXHIBIT 4 Canvass of Votes Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez DATE: January 17, 2006 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Maurice M. Shiu, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Results of the Ballots Cast for the Proposed Assessment for the territory within the boundaries of the "County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit)" (CSA) I, Maurice M. Shiu, Public Works Director for the County of Contra Costa, State of California, having canvassed the return of all votes cast for the proposed assessment for the territory within the "County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit)" (CSA) held between November 22, 2005 and January 17, 2006 do hereby certify the following to be a full, true and correct Statement of Results of all votes cast on the following measure: Annual Assessment for the territory within the boundaries of the "County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit)" Yes 7 No I further certify that the total number of ballots cast at said election was seven and attached hereto are the total ballots received for and against assessment. cc: Teri Rie, Public Works Department EXHIBIT 5 Engineer's Report EXHIBIT 6 NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the requirements of Section 3114 of the Streets and Highways Code, the undersigned Public Works Director hereby gives notice that a diagram and assessment were recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Contra Costa County as provided for in said section, more particularly described on that certain assessment diagram filed in accordance with the section in Book of Maps and Assessments and Community Facilities Districts as-Page in the Office of the County Recorder of.Contra Costa County and relating to the following described real property: County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit) for the areas generally known as Alamo Creek (shown on Vesting Tentative Maps SD 8381, 8382) and Intervening Properties/Remaining Intervening Properties (shown on Vesting Tentative Map SD 8331). Notice is further given that upon the recording of this notice in the Office of the County Recorder, the several assessments assessed on the lots, pieces and parcels shown on said filed assessment diagram shall become a lien upon the lots or portions of lots assessed respectively. Reference is made to the assessment diagram and assessment roll recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Contra Costa County. Dated: Owner Notification: ATTEST: EXHIBIT 1 Legal Description of Property within CSA W C/30174926.3 "FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)". ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "I 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 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 05012'56" 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 01 028'35" 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 02014'27" WEST 1660.66 FEET; THENCE 12) SOUTH 72051'09" EAST 248.70 FEET; THENCE 13) SOUTH 19055'23" 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 14022'57" EAST 352.47 FEET' THENCE "FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)" ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 17) SOUTH 13032'28" 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 05030'00" 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 44021'38" WEST 305.22 FEET; THENCE 25) NORTH 05059'20" EAST 375.19 FEET; THENCE 26) NORTH 88049'33" WEST 3897.41 FEET; THENCE 27) NORTH 00049'06" EAST 2652.17 FEET; THENCE 28) NORTH 89°0117" 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 75034'33" EAST 378.03 FEET; THENCE 33) NORTH 45001'27" EAST 353.57 FEET; THENCE 34) NORTH 48°5017" EAST 346.67 FEET; THENCE 35) NORTH 23026'47" EAST 355.30 FEET; THENCE 36) NORTH 03012'08" EAST 728.98 FEET; THENCE 37) NORTH 42036'00" EAST 313.12 FEET; THENCE 38) NORTH 04056'23" EAST 193.13 FEET; THENCE 39) NORTH 45007'49"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 16°39'23", 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 76026'29" EAST 402.94 FEET; THENCE 46) NORTH 03016'26" EAST 34.21 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. "FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)" 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 16.93.82 FEET 2) NORTH 01°12'32" 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 NON- 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 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 26022'20" 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 00051'07" EAST 50.01 FEET; THENCE 18) SOUTH 87057'58" EAST 338.35 FEET; THENCE 19) SOUTH 74°24'09" EAST.555.01 FEET; THENCE 20.) SOUTH 10050'35"WEST 330.93 FEET; THENCE 21) SOUTH 12035'35" EAST 1024.98 FEET; THENCE 22) SOUTH 10°28'23"WEST 860.58 FEET; THENCE 23) SOUTH 10028'23" 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 "2" ATTACHED, AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE APART HEREOF. A.P.N.'S 206-020-033, 206-190-001, 002, 003, 005 & 006, 206-2207001, 002, 003 & 004 AND 206-030-23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33 & 35 AND 206-020-017. SND `v�5 ,DP UMC { N0.6333 ' O� :� C � EXHIBIT 2 Depiction of Property within CSA WC/30174926.3 ---� w M ii a o� W CLO M33W MONS „cE noea o ! �n amu' M � OZl.9La„?t O*W now Z W U i }QZ N0000. 4 , FSU 04 AK;nx5 ZrooN 44 m o U000Or- 1,�� X aZ<Moo -O� w Z•-� l O O V) FrtYii OcOvoo °• WQ�cyjcNy U 0QC>ZZOO �oaNcv QUQ ^c� IN a �u x.0 N !y Ed O $ Ed N p. W _i = W cn4 U.) s V) u ' �y r �YrdSS/,L ONIA'Y� ��i gap,p`a'rZZ . N Zkp�aZa'£ arp`0,1F o y N 09ST9 M «s►,os.cs s--1 e �,��'1�8 M o Q,srcc► M «s£,er►c N (� o to tD m � ArP, as QW ga s © CIA N rs 02 ul 0 0 0 ,y ` ,P 1 `� , 10 c+s,�'r,` ^�, A- 9, M� $ £ «L�,t�'6g 5� 59'L�L Lti,►0. ,� %P 100 9- �t P a C \ \ ° r, r. o O 11 N r \ N \ 1 \ O. t� � LO f- tU A r � l il � \ ; N \ \ O '�`� ivy '� �p °� 3 c�'�kt%0 9� to u) OD N �! \ s-lJ ° \ \ p c►°Do+ Z ri-kc� 4�N %,"' 0, vc¢D`r�'1 oto Z,.� �f M06 N ` �- \ 2 r r O 0 2 Z 2 gyp © x"' o Z \� (� ► 7. �"`� Q�N U� o+ N o cy-►►2UU p00.0 u N'rU p•o 7,.� N p V� \ Q o � io,_ �\ � '� matiti6° .y '3 Z O 1q, - ° OGN , Ncnr . . `a � V �M -Na 7, �viNwONNO 0 00\o O U `" (.) :0 \ka OS. O �; S toO o N, tO"A rl 0O 'trN0 S O �N�- Q 00 O.0 •1Ge - L O to 01. \ ° / Zotri wv ao \ N \ ` 11 - FQd %t�.� t1�a to t,0 d' co 0 S o �to 4 C4 S OD to cs "i t(� u q N .4O N t' `t� N 11 N tD %�$ �?�P2 % N S oil Q y EXHIBIT "2" PLAT MAP SUB-PARCEL 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 400 0 400 400 E00 1500 SCALE I"=400' ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 400 M EXIST. CAMINO TASSAJARA 10 RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC » 1146.07' O S 05-33'2,111,1111,8 E O S 78°02116" E 840.37' LJ S 79°26'06" E 129.83' .O R=2296.66' S O7 N 78'02'16" W ' L=214.43' O . 347.00 _1"A=05°20'58" C=214.35' ON 01°28'35" E 25.42' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O N 01°2835" E 14,90' SUB-PARCEL 1 R=1950.20' OL=187,74' A=05'30'56" C=187.67' 206-030-023 S 88'41'01" EG)918-99' - 206-030- 1 206-030.-0261 027 1 N 0003259" W 22.91 ' 1 N 11°11'17" W C ��J 3°1843" E 428.94'(TIE TO MON. 288.51' 1 COO w�`R� 1 206-030-025 BL IVE L=492.041 1' N .59 15„ I R 12 10A=14'28'00" C=491.10' "FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)" 6„ E 418.08' 30 AL MO CON. CAECK STA INTERVENING CAL CALIFORNIA IES N 0316 2 A.P.N..S 206-030-23 226,27,28 33,35 & 206-190-001,002,Od3,605,006 & 206-220-001,002,003.004 & 223-020-017 POR) APRIL 17, 20i5 SHEET 3. OF 6 98-1009-11 8381-LAFCO,DWG EXHIBIT "2" PLAT MAP SUB-PARCEL 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 400 0 200 400 600 1600 SCALE 1"=800' ( IN FEET ) 1 :inch = 400 M EXIST. CAMINO TASSAJARA----, RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC S 05-33'2B" E 1146.07' 10 S 78'02'16" E 840.37' SUB-PARCEL 1 S 79'26'06" E 129..83'. 66 R=2296.66' S L=214.43' O A=05020'58" N 78°02'16" W 347.00C=214.35' O N 05.1256« - - - -- - - ECR)- - - — N 01°28'35" E 25.4.2' "FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE eO AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT)" 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 .& 206-190-001,002,003,005,006 & 206-220-001,002,003 004 & 223-020-017 POR) R=1950.20' APRIL 17, 20 5 OL=187.74' Q=05'30'56" I M ASSOCIA TES C=491.10' O ; 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.OWG �. ai to CIA 41) L t,t0.68 N o to tA. m dM a da` M. u p NtD tz to YVZM Q 4 stN �N� W. N tD Z 00 9Z ,LOT90t. M uL t,t0«6ztrt-9Qz NdV Npo \\ a �L' 00 �V dN a WW 7 �' �• , \ a co" ix Zlp-ODt-90Z am cGy NdV t'24f o.N \ N 'd, d.,1 tj W to. N l 900-0Dt-90Z (V ` C? NdV o I N Lip-ODt-90Z NdV OtaN z En 0 i / 6ZO-ODl-90Z QM ss NdV W Wt+)o�j �- f f o 1 NdV N U"000"0 p� � "7 a / / tN, 1 Sl p6tr-90Z N fX / .0 to,C4. o ! Z o � CID tO , CL' L� CD" g ~ - t � o am Zl NdV Ca 60 z1a C, o di N ll0 09D-90Z 7W)C)hNo o t0 1�- a� �N000 0 \ eta' \ o I �M 000 Oto Gtr NdV m C>C.0 Ot+?0 # r a u�j } o n to I to u) = N t!.ZUNDONJ O tI} t� o t� Zt W w Q" ' `,"OL 1 1 W c� "�� a Q o( iv £1p ' YOQaon< dN WU LLJ a� of C'4 t0 F-W UUNN ¢a a N rSt� NN V? a� N10 06tr-90Z NdVw 5tUf5 "0 � N .00 0Llt-09D-90Z Ento d az ON L z 1S V83SH 3 0 �Oz, N mo I cli OZl Q. •rt Off} 4� ii o o ° £90 C'4 d o - a 40 o to O a 1 Z90 Q N to S. YONVIedSa3 o ¢ w w fr} o ( O J O �a o •N i p I to O � � lPi O( W G7 07 Di N z �� W z &t ,10 octDa 4 o �+ a s 60,+� ` z M . vuvrvSS'Vl 0 IWdO d 't1Z'GCf9 3 8t ,WWC 3 „99,ma S e z Z N 'NI N3SNVH '80 >13380 MOOVHS EXHIBIT 6'2" PLAT MAP SUB-PARCEL 2 "FORMATION OF COUNTY SEhv'(CE' AREA T-1 (PUBLIC TRANSIT) ALAMO CREEK / .INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A.P.N. S 206-030-23 25,26,27,28,33,35 & 206--190-001,002,063,005,006 & 206-220-001,002,003 004 & 223-020-=017�POR) APRIL 17, 2005 200 0 100 200 400 G1 In Z rn z D rn N � rn Nm b �� C3 1 to ,, GRAPHIC SCALE Ld OD® OD A ( IN FEET ) rn 1 inch = 200 fL op rn oo � IIb m� r N 03'19'39" w _ CAMINO TASSAJARA — 37.66'(TIE TO CL) r- r 587'57'58"E 889.59' (TIE) L=90'14'49" m z w S8757'58"E 46..24' 16 R=20.00' rnD v 1=31.50' to Oo oz cn C=28.35' O5 p I L1J A pop co N Ln O t0 In O w Z st 6=20'54'31" A=32'12'15" R=239.00' O R=20.00' -� L=87.22' 205 480-025 L=11.24' L=28'37'57" C=86.73' 13 C=1.1.09' © R=341.29' 026 o 589'08'53"E a' L=170.55' ., z �`�8' 102.50' 7 o C=168.78' 9O N18 37 40 W 027 X526 Q) O 50.55' 12 028 �'(,�J Z 10 .`1 N26'22'20"E 118 277.44' 4 2�5 22,20n� 28.28' 11 CASABFNST S89'08'53"E N� m119 L>A=71'08'48 �F A=09'09' "w R=45.00; R=640,00' 62 L=55.88 L=102.24; w rn C=52.36' SO C=102.13 SHEET 6 OF 6 EXHIBIT 3 "Alamo Creek/intervening Properties Transit Improvements Study: Final Report" (March 2005) WC/30174926.3 N. ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY. Final Report Prepared for: Contra.Costa County Community Development Department Prepared by: CINaRs Wilbur Smith Associates WILBOR SMITH ASSOCIATES March 2005 � � ' � TABLE OF CONTEWTS � P aUP-e � CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION ---� l/0 Project Description --_-...---....---..------.---.-.-.--.-.-. l-1 1.1 Existing Conditions....................................................................................................... l-3 ' 1.1. Census 2000 Jodm6y ToWork Data............................................................. l-3 1.1-2 Vehicle Occupancy--._-'._- ............................................................... 1'2 Transit Demand............................................................................ ................................ l-5 12.1 Land Use........................... ................ ..........---.--....--_-'--.-.. l-� 1.22 Calculation of Transit Demand............................. ................................. 1-5 1-2.3 Different Modes ofTransit Demand...................`...................................... l-7 1.3. Existing Transit Service...................................................... .................................... l�8 1.3.1 CootraCosto Connection 8on'ico-................................................ l-9 1.3.2. BART Mode of Access.............. ................................................................. l-ll � 1.4 Market Anuksis-........................................................... ............... ....................... l-l2 CHAPTER 2 - PROMISING BUS SERVICESTRATEGIES* � 2]} Commute Market Origins and Destinations---------.-.--------'-2-1 ' 2.1 Employment Destinations...........................................................................................2-1 � Zll Regional Transit Hubo_-.--.-...--.-----'`.-.--..-..,..--..--'.--2-1 ` | 2.12 Residential�"**�" ' ' ' '' ' 2 l - 22Market Dimensions.....................................................................................................2-2 2] Bus Access Options n11b&Proposed Project Sites ...................... ...... ..'-...............2-2 2].1 Flexible Route Option...................................................................................2-2 2.32 Fixed Route Option#1 ............................................................. ...............2-1 23] Fixed.Route Option#2._--._----.---.----.---.-,-.-.---2-3 � ' 23'4 Fixed Route Option#3------.--r-. ...............................................Z-3 23.5 Summary, --.--.__---_---_.--....`----...---'.-,---.-2-7 ' 2'4 Potential Service Linkage Strategies ...........................---._.,---------.-2-7 24.1 Strategy}\-Walnut C-i6ek.......................... ...............................................2-7 ` '2'42 Strategy B-Dublin/Pleasanton BART .........................................2-9 2.4.3 C-��ubnot*Creek BART via BishopRanch..* '--------..`2-� ` 2.4'4 Strategy DBauieodu]Gnoineou Park_ ................. .................................2-9 2'4.5 Strat.egy.E Bishop Ranch Shuttle...............-..........................................2-9 � 2'4.6 Summpiry-..,-.-..-.~.-_.-.r'._.--..-..~.-.--.—.._..-'2-l4 � CHAPTER 3 - IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS. ' � ice 3]0 No`v .--.-..,...'�.-.-..-'.-.........-..-.-..--..-.--..----j-� ' � 3.0. Walnut Creek BART A-31..............................................37l 3.0.2 Dublin/Pleasanton BART and-Hacienda Business Park Service............-3-2 3.0.3 Summary .------. --..-.-.--..---_ .------.-----3-3 3.I Modification nfCurrent Service............... ..................... .......... ..............................3-3 � 516990 ' FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page ` � ' TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.1.1 Route 960.......................................................................................:............3-3 3.L2 Route 970..........................................................:........................................34 3.1.3 Summary.............................................................................................. ..3-4 3.2 Vehicle Needs......................................:.........................................I. ..3-4. 3.3 Management Options................................................. ....................................I.......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 Impl"ementation.............................................................................................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....................................................................................................3-11 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 - j Table 5: Summary of Total Daily Public Transit Trips..............................................:...... 1-7 Table 6: Daily Transit Trips by Type of Transit................................................................ 1-8 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 BART Service......................... ................I..............3-3 Table 12: Annual Cost Estimates for Service Options .......................................................340 LIST OF FIGURES Figure l: Project Site Location................... Figure 2: County.Connection Route 221..............::.................................................:......... 1-10 :Figure 3: Average Daily;Ridership per Run on CCCTA Route 221................................. 1-1'1 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.....:........................242 Figure 11: Alternative E.—Bishop Ranch Shuttle......................................:........................2-13 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page ii 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 B4 Transit Trips C: C-1 County Connection RTE 221 C-2 Existing 960 B/C and 70/C Routes D: Bishop Ranch Employment Centers E: County Connections Adopted Policy for Service Expansion 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page iii Chapter 1 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 following 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 Intervening Properties Project sites are located on a total of 609 acres in Contra Costa County. The Proposed.Prcjects 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 Black-hawk 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 Road, Tassaj ara.Ranch Drive, Blackhawk Drive (gated), Mansfield Drive (gated), Parkhaven.Drive, and Buckingham Drive (gated). Figure 1 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, • 2000 Census Journey to Work.data, and ■ CCCTA person trips. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 1 -1 Eos fiat o I moN O a � w Z w � 0 LIA ul C6 0. d. a o IL 2 AA w . CL p6 ` vaw �N M � m wYi v /— V /� l c `\ p �L Qty 4c ,jsL\� c . o A�oA 4-�.�cA • 1 0 1 06 Y 0 t� ' c �� . gig � z � 1 z • 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 Dougherty.Valley 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 Valley Transit Study was preparedfor 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 latenttransit demand or unrealized demand. The following sections present a market 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-to=work patterns for six adjacent census tracts (3451.03, 3451.07, 3451.08, 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 1 I percent commute to San Francisco. Table 1 Contra:Costa County Residents - Place of Work. Place,of Work No. of Persons Percent Contra Costa County 254,749 58% . Alameda County 95,938 22%. San Francisco County 49,525 11% Santa Clara County 10,145 2% San Mateo County 9,279 2% Marin County 6;803 2% . .Solano County 6;506 1% Other 8,652 2% Total- 4.41,597 100% Data Source: Cerisus.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 work by car, while only a very small percentage use a form of . . 516990 ALAMO.CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT "MARCH 2005 Page 1 -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 forms of transportation means as their mode to work. Table 2 presents the mode share for each of the six census tracts. Table 2 Mode Share for Six 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% 92J% 93.4% 90.7% 93.0% .92.5%. Public transportation: 6.2% 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% 2.10N 2.6%0 2.0% Total Commuters (not work at home) 100.00/0 100.0% 100.0% 100.00/0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source:Census 2000 Summary File 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 Jose 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 take 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. 'Based on the percent of public transit commuters who indicated railroad,elevated,streetcar or subway in Census 2000 data. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR.SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 1 -4 Table 3 Average Vehicle Oce upancy for Six Census Tracts Adjacent to Project Area Total Percentage Total No. of Average# Car pooled 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 6-person carpool 35 0.1% 6 In 7-or-more-person carpool 67 0.3% 10 Total carpool 2,440 9.5% 1,100 Total drove alone 23,286 90.5% 23,286 Total car,truck or van 25,726 100.0% 24,386 1.05 Source:Census 2000 Summary File 3.(SF 3)-Sample Data Notes: (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 in a 2 person car pool): 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 i 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, apd 120 senior housing 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 CCTA 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 Creek Project and the Proposed Intervening Properties Project (based on the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment Study and Related Actions FEIR). .From these . total daily vehicle trips, daily person trips were estimated by applying the Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) and the average vehicle mode share (based on the six adjacent census tracts 516990 i . ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2605 Page 1 -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-Pr oposed 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 Actions 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(1) AVO(�)t'1 Share t'1 Person Trips Proposed Alamo Creek Project Single Family Residential 679 6,498 1.05 92.5% 7,376 Multi-Family Residential 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 Properties Project Single Family Residential 377 3,608 1.05 92.56/o 46,096 Multi-Family,Residential 96 562 1.05 92.5% 638 Total 473 4,170 1.05 92.5% 4,734 . Total 1,396 10,048 1.05 92.5% 13,338. Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Notes: (1) Source: Based on vehicle trip generation rates sited in the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment Study and Related Actions FEIR (2)'AVO=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 mode share(approximately 5A 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.Table 5 presents a summary of total transit trips for each.Proposed Project. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES 'FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 1 -6 Table 5 Summary of Total Daily Public Transit Trips Proposed Alamo Creek Project and the Proposed Intervening 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 13,338 5370/. -716 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Notes: (1)Based 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 ■ Subway or elevated ■ Railroad ■ Ferryboat ■ Taxicab s 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 Dublin/Pleasantori Station, the Lafayette Station and the Walnut Creek Station) are located over . 516990 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. bus,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 other 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 forth 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. BUS 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 6 below 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 By Type of Transit Proposed Alamo Creek Project and the Proposed intervening Properties Project No. of bus No. bus Total Public Trips by trips to trips to Total bus Transit Tri s. rai1BART cn BAR7n) worko) demand Proposed Alamo Creek Project 462 448 31 19 50 Proposed Intervening '-Properties Project 254 246 17 10 27 Total 716. 694 48 29 77 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Notes: (1)Assumes 97.0 percent of total transit trips are by rail/BART(Source:Census 2000 joumey-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. sl 6990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 1 -8 1.3.1 Contra Costa County Connection Service Effective in late December 2004, County Connection's Route 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 Proposed Projects 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 22.1 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 during 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. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES.TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005. Pg9e 1 -9 N Os 1r'� O� O P Z .- O '" �ht y 7 O � u u A F" VOW" AMA N .. spy ttri r Z o d `'At �p c G ah r Z G y PH MQO 4 r� d ¢' 3 o 0 d P 011eA 7 Cd 'u x Q sow p Figure 3: Average Daily Ridership per Run on CCCTA Route 22.1 35.- 30 25 a, 20 d H 15 a 10 . 5 0 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 Dublin/Pleasanton 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.]) 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 Mode 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 BART 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 Dublin/Pleasanton BART stations. 516990 ! ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005: Page 1 - 11 1.4 MARKET ANALYSIS As described.in Section 1.2.3, 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 Creek Project, and approximately 27 from the Proposed Intervening Properties Project). Available bus service near the. study area (Route 221) provides a 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 other non-commute markets could. . also benefit from new bus service. 2 Discussions with Brandon Farley,Senior Planner,Central Contra Costa Transit Authority,(925)676-1976. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Pagel - 12 Chapter 2 PROMISING BUS SERVICE STRATEGIES The most effective transit service strategy will directly link the Proposed Project to major employment destinations and to regional transit hubs. Linkage strategies are described in the following section. Operational strategies.and implementation are addressed in Chapter 3. 2.0 COMMUTE MARKET 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 Proposed Troject are the Walnut Creek BART and the Dubliri/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 ? stations therefore appear to offer the. greatest commuter bus service patronage.potential. An HOV lane will also help to.provide travel time advantages for buses on the Contra Costa County portion of I-680 towards the Walnut Creek BART Station. Bishop Ranch is located about six miles 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 jobs. Downtown Walnut Creek is another center for employment. It ig located about 14 miles away from the Proposed Project. 2.1A Regional Transit Hubs Residents commuting to San 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 Pinley Road. The Proposed Intervening Properties Project would 596990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 2- 1 include construction of 377 single family residential units and 96 n{sdt�-family residential units. The Proposed Alamo Creek Project would include construction of 538 Aingle family residential units,'1[I multi-family residential units, and 120 senior housing units. I"ddition, a school with a . capacity ftw'740 students and several soccer fields are also proposes. 2.2 MARKXT DIMENSIONS Many market factors are inportant.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 Ranch 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 Projectand 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 F.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. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS.STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 2-2 2.3.2 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 AlamoCreek, Approximately 50 percent of the residents would be within a quarter mile, 30 percent would be withina 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 ofbike lockers'and/or racks at the Shadow Creek Drive school and near the Casablanca Street and Blackhawk 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 Tassajara, and F 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 withina 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 mile 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 Creek 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 #l. and #2 (shown in Figures 4 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. S1d990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY . WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 2-3 0 O Z Ul " � O flo CL C � of F J I Z Q 0 F N V H W 1� W IL w LU • � � W iY 3 b �J Y ' W W V Q ` y W O � . 3 � J o z'M N > W o � a Z a �° h lip� � � rr V� 3 V in d 5C o s a ✓94 o o � g or IL ad y 3u � w W p' sm a iZ x_ tu W a O C6 O 2-1 J, MA Z W a on ••oM � • d . a ce G OL . V tr p OCL0 vu . 61 ZQ � V W w r Z UA ILU aR 1aaJjs� � Q V V p w o ' o� �Y w w 0 0 .: • S 14 to kA ° xa o Ln w �. .a . z 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 alternative service 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 1, 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 1-680. Path*2 would use Sycamore Valley Road to access I-680 and Path. 3 would use Crow Canyon Road and Norris Canyon Road to access I-680. I-6.80'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 1-40 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 PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 2-7 ALAMO CREEK& INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STUDY 8 24 f- _Walnut Creek BART Legend Alternative A- •••••• Alternadve A-2 ■ . . . Alternative A-3 f 1+M u �. n u Bishop Ranch Project 68 site a 0 Dublinl Pleasanton Hacienda Stoneridge Mall BART e Business Pork 68 e� NORTH NOT TO SCALE pr 8 (&- ne ctns Figure 7 I,-FWASI r n�rAs rwrn ALTERNATIVE A ice Wilbur Smith Associates WALNUT CREEK BART 516990WlTERNATIVES-10!11/01 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 rousing 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 Creek BART 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, I-6.80, I- 580, Hopyard Road, Owens Drive and terminate in a local service loop within Hacienda Business Park'.. HOV lanes are not planned for I-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 minutes. 2.4.5 Strategy E—Bishop Ranch Shuttle As shown in Figure 11, this route 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. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES PfNAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 2-9 ALAMO CREEK& INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STUDY i 88 • 24 , _Wolnut Creek BART Legend Alternative B Bishop Ranch Project 68 x Site a � C Y 6 tiP hey - �e • Dublin/ Pleasanton Hacienda Stoneridge Mall BART Business �( n Park 68 NORTH .. NOT TO SCALE ��►�� �+ Figure 8 a,u,rtM ALTERNATIVE B twit Wilbur Smith Associates DUBLIN/PLEASANTON BART 51699MALTERNATMS:10/11/04 ALAMO CREEK& INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STUDY e 24 �—_Walnut Creek BART Legend Alternative C y� id 'g . Bishop Ranch Project 680 s Site . fi ti5 � e Dublin/ Pleasanton. Hacienda Stoneridge Mall BART ! Business c Park e° fib NORTH S� a NOT TO SCALE 8 C ��►�� Pxcararnns Figure.9 ALTERNATIVE C >•����r Wilbur Smith Associates BISHOP RANCH -WALNUT CREEK BART 5169901ALTERNAT1VE5-10/11/04 ALAMO CREEK& INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STUDY el 24 _Walnut Creek BART Legend �■ Alternative D �5 r10^Gryon IU Bishop Ranch Project 68 Site z .. a e 80 Dublinl Pleasanton Hacienda Stoneridge Mali BART Business � Pork Ley ® 9 � NORTH cs� NOT To SCALE er 6 IMA*Mi�►�� Figure 10 n-Jrv- ALTERNATIVE D 'WrAr BISHOP RANCH-DUBLINJPLEASANTON BART - HACIENDA Wilbur Smith Associates 516990V.LTFRNATIVES—10/11/04 ALAMO.CREEK&INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STUDY � s 2, Walnut Geek BART Legend Alternative E h1q b 84 w Y� Bishop Ranch Project sea Site g LI s 6 �S tac c Dublin/ Pleasanton Hacienda Stoneridge Mall BART Business Park .s* ® a ed�Aa 68 NORTH o j NOT TO SCALE B ���►�� s Figure-I I //MMI1 nera�ns ALTERNATIVE E BISHOP RANCH Wilbur Smith Associates 516990\ALTERNATIVES—10/11/04 2.4.6 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 shortest travel path. In addition, Strategy A-3 provides a non=stop service to Walnut Creek for maximum use of the median HOV lanes along 1-680. In contrast, Strategy C (Walnut Creek BART via Bishop Ranch) would better serve Walnut Creek,but it would also add a total of 16 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 .Tassa.ara 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. Table 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 • Qualitative assessments of potential to serve reverse direction.peak commute demands destined from cion Project residential.areas to Bishop Ranch or Hacienda Business Park. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page2-14 N � Ob 8 w o � `n 3 o C y ttt333000 aAi ... 2 p w C 0 H � U � ,a A ,wQty G O 4 Q C - So 0H� a o o r v� in ry a •1 ~0 asN ci 0 N 4> y L t a. ed ami vrn . co m oo ca 00 oo . -00 00 uj j. U A 1 cl _ . ++ 0 N �� M remit v� V y N 3 „ a a � d A G A .t •� N t- tll w F p O •ami O C O � w � � 0. Cd ,NU• .c� 'AN •� � � .G O o H 5 A 3 �. O y. Uo of •'�O� W 4 'IQ y �v dW CA GQ o f-•� y ' � � �' °' •do �Z "' � V CA� ts'';3 ,� p'� y 0 w 0 r Chapter 3 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 NEW SERVICE For the new:service, Strategy A-3. (service to Walnut Creek.BART via Crow Canyon and Norris Canyon.Roads) offered the most promising 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 Dublin/Pleasanton BART 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 I-680's HOV 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. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT.IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3-1 Table 8 Walnut Creek BART Service Morning Schedule WeekdayAM 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 Jntervening 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. San Francisco via BART 7:20 AM 8:00 AM 8:50 AM 9:30 AM Source:Wilbur Smith Associates Table 9 Walnut Creek BART Service Evening Schedule WeekdayPM Commute Peak Service Area BUS#1 BUS#2 BUS#1 BUS#2 Alamo.Creek 4:10 PM 5:00 PM 5:50 PM 6:30 PM Intervening Properties 4:50 PM 5:40 PM 6:30 PM 7:10 PM Bishop Ranch 5:15 PM 6:05 PM 6:55 PM 7:35 PM Walnut 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 J 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 two buses according to the schedule shown in Tables 10 and 11. Table 10 Dublin/Pleasanton Morning 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 Intervenin Pro erties 6:18 AM 6:48 AM 7:54 AM . 8:24.AM Bishop Ranch 6:44 AM 7:14 AM 8:18.AM 8.:50 AM Dubbin BART 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:35 AM 9:06 ANI Hacienda Business Park 7:05 AM 7:35 AM 8:50 AM. 9:11 AM San Francisco via BARTs 7:50 AM 8:20 AM 9:25 AM 9:56 AM Source:Wilbur Smith Associates 516990 I ALAMo CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3-2 Table 11 Dublin/Pleasanton Evening BART Service Weekday P,M Commute Peak Service.Area BUS #1 BUS#2 BUS #1 BUS##2 Alamo Creek 4:05 PM 5:05 PM 5:50 PM 6:40 PM Intervening Properties 4:51 PM 5:51 PM 6:36 PM 7:26 PM BishopRanch 4:55 PM 5:55 PM 6:40 PM 7:30 PM Dubtin'BART 5:20 PM 6:20 PM . 7:05 PM . . 7:55 PM Hacienda Business Park 5:41 PM 6:41 PM7:26 PM 8:16 PM San Francisco via BARTs 5:45 PM 6:45 PM 7:30 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 accepteA 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 commute market. The most promising new service appears to be the Bishop Ranch/Walnut Creek BART service concept. 3.1 MODIFICATION OF CURRENT SERVICE The Walnut Creek BART service plan could be implemented by modifying County Connection Bishop Ranch service Route 960. Modification of Route 970 service could possibly connect the Proposed Project to the Dublin/Pteasanton BART .Station. It also should be noted that the Walnut Creek 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 I-680, making a stop at the Danville Park and Ride Lot along the way. Bishop Ranch Route-060B makes a large counter-clockwise loop serving employment centers as far north as Norris 'Canyon Road. Version C operates similarly, with the exception of entering Bishop Ranch at Crow Canyon Road, 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 960C northbound service for the morning commute peak begins at.7:I0 am and ends at 8:11 am, providing three bus trips. Therefore, together these two routes provide 8:00 am peak period 51699Q ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3-3 i northbound trips to Walnut Creek BART. Route 960C orientation to 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 960C is that the 960C buses would run empty from 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 to.Bishop Ranch in order to get in position for service. The most promising opportunities would be to start the first northbound 960C 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 6:30 am. During the evening peak, the.last trip of 960B 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. Version 8 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 service that i 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-road.intercity coach. For service start up'a medium size minibus or.30 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 lend themselves to the needs of the Proposed. . Project. Some communities deploy small paratransit vehicles for specialized commute markets 4n the early morning and evening hours, when peak.demands for paratansit services tend to.be minimal. These vehicles 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 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES 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 for a 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 to-operate the 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;400 residents are anticipated.. The most recent data for County Connection indicates that a population this size would provide funding to support about 0.85 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 buses providing 2,300 annual bus hours 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 fullypaid costs including capital. Second priority to fully paid operating and lost opportunity cost, third priority to fully paid operating-cost, and fourth 516990 �• ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING.PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page3-5 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 full.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 for the full size buses. $80 per bus hour for minibus operation is suggested for budgeting purposes. 3.3.2 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 complement regular fixed.route services. An exemption to.this requirement is provided fair 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 generated by the Proposed Project's residents. County Connections obligations, are strictly limited to providing paratransit services to areas it 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 pressedto extend paratransit services .even if fixed route services are not extended to cover the Proposed Project. :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 during 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 likely be'deemed 'a transit service failure.as.the 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES 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. I Start-up service implemented as either vanpool or maxi-taxi service, depending on the ability to find a vanpool driver; 2. Project shuttle bus service operated by private contractor; and 3. Long term integration into County Connection service network:. A shuttle operation will not be cost effective in the early year(s) of project occupancy. Vehicles would operate virtually empty. Thus, the first phase'rideshare efforts should focuson finding a . vanpool/shuttlepool driver and subsidizing the scheduled vanpool/shuttlepool 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 Projects, 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 vanpooUshuttlepool 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 oftravel. Shuttle stops are proposed as follows: Alamo Creek Development • Swim Center. E Street at southwest corner of elementary school A Street intersection with F 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 IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3-7 1 Walnut Creek BART If funding support can be obtained from County Connection or Bishop Ranch other shuttle stops might be added as follows: • 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 8 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). Itis plausible that Bishop Ranch might also subsidize the Propos ed'Projects backhaul reverse direction commute-between Walnut Creek and Bishop.Ranch), which coincides with the `Bishop Ranch peak commute direction. It is 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 therefore .is 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 privafe vehicles and.therefore achieve one of the key objectives of providing the Proposed Project transit 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3 -8 1 service.. 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 34,000 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 weekdays-on average annually l for 8 hours each daily would total 4,000 annual vehicle hours of operation. At an estimated cost of $40 .per vehicle hour of operation for privately contracted shuttle service this would total $J 60,000-annually. At $80 per vehicle hour for County.Connection service the cost would be $320,000 annually. For the start-up vanpool/shuttlepool service, the costs would involve coverage of 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 t2 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 information to all residents on an annual basis as well as marketing.coordination with welcome-wagon and other programs. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3-9 t Qg. %0 00 �o 00 �o 00 M 1%0 %0 110 00 %0 00 0% 05 ++ wN � N0, N � � tninIna% v) O� d 2 y, NNN N c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O y 0 ytn co ^. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O J cd o o 0 0 0 0 0 O o o o o .O. 0 o 0 3 }" �7M ct Mit MNd �i �F Md O p M tn h rs °.I x 6 o O 0. �. > Li cd 0 000000000000 �; Q- cva 3 O o00OoOoo. oOoo 4o � a� H V'1 CC YlCO bc N l! 00 Yl v7 Vl I� V'1 [� �O . M N M N — co c'n m N m N U 0 �O O o y bo.— C, O _p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO O OO cw N y MCL p+ O O o 0 0 -O O O O O O O O O N 0A +' r. 0 6O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O et M M M cq N M rn m c•c'i Mco.M p �R O .ta V M ct M m M en CA M M m M M M � Cd C .tc O �, V) S.CO. ¢" z v� •i. ", y � N > 6� NOL O 'C7y. ft d �coy b CNd o o 4 .a M M M M (r7 M N M M M M M M ; bo 4Z M •y �. > o . �. AL CJ N N moi, r+ CL O > N 'b O v� w Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O w h O CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (=> 0 rS .� U N O O O O o 0 0 0 0 O O O o 0 U 69 6H j o a m Oui Z cC U > a> W 0 � NE > C pD oCaoOoO0000000O 'a C;j O � ai � 00 0. 00000000000 to °.. 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `� rA 0 0 s. oCd CA Cdz � N .0 � x V) U O y 4- W 0 0 0 'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .c O W O V oC d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U O U :� a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 — y O 'O0 0 0 .q O O O O O O O O V 1 p a> +� ,� nom, y, N �t Nd N "tNd' Nit N "tt \O +� dM N M N M N M N M N M N bA Co .cd 6sUZ [1.w w _. It o o z z En NN �Mn, Mww. a� /w� /W� rw1c�1 � Q W U U O: h LL. 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 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 costs 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 to serve 30 to 40 passenger trips during. each peak commute period (between 60 and 80 riders per day) on an average weekday. Trips to BART are estimated to account for`75 percent of these total trips with 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 achieved in more densely developed portions of the service area and. includes 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 needs. 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 of$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 passenger boarding on County Connection .bus 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 operating costs 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 $256 for the eight bus trip option or$ 198 for the six*bus trip option. These costs on ..:a monthly basis would be $21.35 for the eight .bus trip option and $16.50for the six-bus trip option. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3'- 11 On the basis of IA persons per car during peak commute hours, the typical vehicle.trip savings associated with 44 commute period passengers would be 36 cars for each commute period and about 24 cars.during the peak hour of the commute period. r 516990. A(AMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Pagel- 12 PpP EN�1C�s APPENDIX A Means of Transportation to Work BART Mode of Access ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 M 00 �O l- O 'tN ct O M p Yj h l� r^ O M t-. O O q O O O 0o p ' OMO 06 Vj -O O 4 0 0 0 a ty o O -- O O rl H O a N N -* MNMN O o "'+' O a � N [ t- N N N N N O d v a gC0Cir, 00 to aoovo00 0 �ioo p u rn .-. H o H d ^ b N N O O� OO ti O O 'R v1, M 00 �O f\ O O a O O O ti N O0 O p •O O A., L 4 a' t` 00 't O t- t- Co O Op C) N h ON C [ u T a p00 O !t O O M O O O �i O O O O O R! CO M O -4 L O ,y N 00 O W t� 6 O O Vl 0 6 0 ti 0 o — O p y en O .r �+ N d w i; 0 0 0 0 0 0 y, O O %n 00 O O c O' M - t- O: C w of � er O O N O O vi 00 G � O\ 'n 4 N O O 0o 4n O O c ^+ n' ' O G cn a 00_ �O O O v1 O O O Ai,O O O O w M O y s~ H tl O lu44 v o > t3 N p >1 b °' y ' c . a " o ;.' d d o o o o F °o � .2y o ° U d. u v U a d > v ° v 10 i ° p b ani cs3 ° obi G �� d06 0 CVC-)U a�' w 'N c'e aA3b �. Appendix A-2: Mode of Access for BART Patrons near Proposed'Project Sites Dublin Pleasanton Station Mode Number Mode-Share Car 312 90% Transit 28 8% Bicycle 7 2% Walked 1 0% Total 348 100% Lafayette Station Mode , Number Mode Share Car 305 8 8.2"/0 Walked i. 20 + 5.8% Transit i 19 5.5% Motorcycle/Moped j 2 i 0.6% Total 346 1006/0 j Walnut Creek Station Mode ----T Number Mode Share Car t 336 . 79.8% Walked 47 11.2% Transit !! 29 i 6.9% Bicycle . i 8 ! 1.9% Taxi 1 . 0.2% Total 421 100% All Study Area Stations Mode Number Mode Share Car 953 85.5%' Walked 68. . 6,1% Transit 76 6.8% Bicycle 15 1.3% Taxi 1 0.1% Motorcycle/Moped 2 0.2% Total . 1115 100% Source:Wilbur Smith Associates, 1998 APPENDIX B Vehicle Trip Rates Vehicle Trips Person Trips Transit Trips i Appendix B-1: Vehicle Trip.Generation Rates-Alamo Creek and Intervening Properties Proposed Alamo Creek Proect Vehicle Tris 1 Land Use No.of Dwelling Units In Out Total Single Family Residential AM Peak Hour 679 0.25 0.75 1.00 PM Peak Hour 679 0.65 0.36 1.01 Daily Total 679 4.785 4.785 9.57 Multi-Family;Residential AM Peak Hour 124 0.08 0.43 0.51 PM.Peak Hour 124 0.42 0.20 0.62 Daily Total, 124 3.32 3.32, 6.64 Senior Housing . AM Peak Hour 120. 0.04 0.02 0.06 PM Peak Hour 120 0:10 .0.07 0.17 Daily`Tota1 120 1.075 1.075, . 2.15 Proposed.Iutervening Properties Project Land Use Vehicle Trips No.of Dwelling Units In Out Total. Single Family Residential AM Peak Hour 377 0.25. 0.75 1..00 PM Peak Hour 377 0.65 0.36 1.01 Daily 377 4.785 4.785 9.57 Multi-Family Residential AM Peak Hour 96 .0.08 0.43 0.51 PM Peak Hour 96 0.36 0.19 0.55 Daily 96 2.93 2.93 . 5.86 Source:Trip Generation at Buildout Full-Range Affordable Housing Alternative-Revised Jan 20;2004 (1)Alamo Creek EIR Appendix F of the Draft EIR for the Integrated.Project(DEIR),August 11,2000 Appendix B-2: Vehicle Trips-Alamo Creek and Intervening Properties Proposed Alamo Creek Project . No.of Vehicle Tris 1 Land Use Dwelling Units in Out. Total Single Family Residential AM Peak Hour 679 170 509 '679 PM Peak Hour 679686 DailyTotal 679. 3,249 3,249 6,498 Multi-Family.Residential AM Peak Hour 124. 10 53 .63 PM Peak Hour 124 52 25 77 Daily Total 124 412 412 823 Senior Housing AM Peak Hour 1,20 5 2 7 PM Peak Hour 120 12 8 20 Daily Total 120 129 129 258 Tota!Proposed Alamo Creek Project AM Peak Hour 184 565 749 PM Peak Hour 505 278 783 Daily 3,790 3,790 7,579 Proposed Intervening Properties Project No.of Vehicle Trips(1) FAMPeakHow DwellingUnits In out Total y Residential our 377 94 283 377 our 377 245 136 381 377 1,804 1,804 3,608 y Residential ow 96 8 41 49 PM Peak Hour 96 35 18 53 Daily 96 281 281 563 Tota!Proposed Intervening Properties Project AM Peak Hour 102 324 426 PM Peak Hour 280 154 434 Daily 2,085 2,085 4,170 Combined Proposed Projects No.of Vehicle Tris 1 Land Use Dwelling Units in Out Total Single Family Residential AM Peak Hour 1,056 264 792 1,056 PM Peak Hour 1,056 686 380 1,067 . Daily Total 1,056 5,053 5,053 10,106 Multi-Family.Residential AM Peak Hour 220 18 95 112 PM Peak Hour 220 87 43 130 Daily Total 220 693 693 1,386 Senior Housing AM Peak Hour 126 5 2 7 PM Peak Houi 120 12 8 20 Daily Total 120 129 129 258 Total Combined Prgposed Projects AM Peak Hour, 286 889 1,175 PM Peak Hour 785 432 1,217 Daily 5,875 5,875 11,750 Source:Trip Generation at Buildout Full-Range Affordable Housing Alternative-Revised Ian 20,2004 (1)Based on vehicle trip generation rates derrived from the CCTA Model'and Alamo Creek EIR Appendix B-3: Person Trips-Alamo Creek and Intervening Properties Proposed Alamo Creek Project No.of Vehicle Person Trips Vehide Mode Land Use Dwelling Units Trips(1) AVO a' by Vehicle Share% t'1 Total No.Person Trips Single Family Residential AM Peak Hour 679 679. 1.05 713 PM Peak Hour 679 686 1.05 720 Daily Total 679 ' 6,498 1.05 6,823 92.5% 7;376 Multi-Family Residential AM Peak Hour 124 63 1.05 66 PM Peak Hour 124 .77 d:05 81. Daily Total 124 823 1.05 865 92.5% 935 Senior.Housing AM Peak Hour 120 7 1.05 8 PM Peak Hour 120 20 1.05 21 Daily Total 120 258 1.05 271 92.5% 293 Total Proposed Alamo Creek Project AM Peak Hour 749 1.05 787 PM Peak Hour 783 1.05 822 Daily 7,579 1.05 7,958 92.5%° 8,604 Proposed Intervening Properties Project No.of Vehicle Person Trips Vehicle Mode Land Use Dwelling Units Trips tri AVO by Vehicle Share%.t3/ Total No.Person Trips Single Family 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% 4,095 Multi-Family Residential AM Peak Hour 96 49 1.05 51 PM Peak Hour 96 53 1.05 55 Daily 96 563 1.05 591 92.5%, .639 Total Proposed Intervening Properties Project AM Peak Hour 426 1.05 447 PM Peak Hour 434 1.05 455 Daily 4,170 1.05 4,379 92.5% 4,734 Combined Proposed Projects No.of Vehicle Person Trips Vehicle Mode Land Use TDwelling Units. Trips trt AVO R/ by Vehicle Share% til Total No.Person Trips Single Family Residential Daily Total 1,056 10,106 1.05 10,611 92.5% 11,472 Multi<Family Residential Daily Total 220 1,386 1.05 1,455. 92.5% 1,573 Senior Housing Daily Total 120, 258 1:05. 271 92.5% 293 Total CoWined Proposed Projects Daily 11,750 1.05 11,337 92.5% 13,338 'Source:Trip Generation at Buildout Full-Range Affordable Housing Alternative-Revised]an 20,2004 Source:Census 2000 Summary File 3(SF 3)-Sample Data Based on six census tracts adjacent to the Proposed Project sites. (1)Based.on vehicle trip generation rates derrived from the CCTA Model and Alamo Creek EIR (2)Assumes Average Vehicle Occupancy(AVO)of 1.05 per vehicle. Based on the AVO for six census'tracts adjacent to project area (3)Assumes a vehicle mode share of 92.5 percent.Based on the journey-to-work data for six census tracts adjacent to project area. .Appendix B4: Transit Trips Proposed Alamo Creek Projects Rail/BART. Transit Trips transit trips .Bus trips to that are Bus Total bus Transit Trips (97%of all BART(7%of (4%otall demand(Bus No.of Person (mode share of transit trips are all rail trips are transit trips to Bart and Land Use Units Trips(1) 5.37%)(1). rail)8l bus)(4) are bus) Bus to Work) Single Family Residential Daily Total 679 7,376 396.1 383.9 26.9 15.8 42.7 Multi-FamilyResidential Daily Total 124 935 50.2 48.6 3.4 2.0 5.4 Senior Housing Daily Total 120 293 15.7 15.2 1.1 0.6 1.7 Tota Proposed Alamo Creek Project Daly 8,604 462.0 447.8 31.3 19.0` 50.3 Proposed Intervening Properties Project -RaiUBART Transit Trips transit trips Bus trips to that are Bus Total bus Transit Trips- (97%of all BART(7%of (4%of all demand(Bus No.of Person (mode share of transit trips are all rail trips are transit trips to Bart and Land Use Units Trips pl 5.37%)Pl rail)Pl bus)Nl are bus) Bus to Work) Single Family Residential Daily 377 4;095 219.9 213.1 14:9 8.8 23.7 Multi-Family Residential .Daily 1 6 639 34.3 332 2.3 1.4 3.7 Tota Proposed Intervening Properties Project t Daly 4,734 254.2 246.4. 17.2 1&2 27.4 Combined Proposed Projects. RailfBART Transit Trips transit trips Bus trips to that are Bus Total bus Transit Trips (97%of all BART(7%of (4%of all demand(Bus No.of Person (mode shareof transit trips are all rail.trips are transit trips. to Bart and Land Use Units Trips til 5.37%)Rl r2il)-0l bus)Nl are bus) Bus to Work) Single Family Residential Daily Total 1,056 11,472 616.0 597.0 41.8 24.6 66.4 Multi-Family Residential Daily Total 220 1;573 84.5 81.9 5.7 3.4.. 9.1 Senior Housing Daily Total 120 293 15.7 15.2 1.1 0.6 1.7 Total Combined Proposed Projects Daly 1 13,338 1 7161 694.2 48.0. 28.6 77.2 Source:Census 2000 Summary File 3(SF 3)-Sample Data Based on six census tracts adjacent to the Proposed Project sites. (1)See Appendix B-3 (2)See Appendix A-I (3)See Appendix A-1 (4)See Appendix A-2 APPENDIX.C County Connection RTE 221 Existing.-960 8/C and 97010 Routes S Route 221E The reduction of service from the former Route 221 to the new 221L provides only one daily round trip in the peak commute direction to Walnut Creek BART. The morning trip begins at Bollinger 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. 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 221L is not a very attractive option. r Q :.� OQ d 4, � d o00 Aly ErC �O ham„ h �t eY M 0 a N 0000 4 46 W 00 N � 4 O O� Oi �'•� b .M O O N p cl kn CD cl 10 0 A t. Ol O 4 O O C d op IV z h q o h rV o N M o0 G M N L C1 h 06 N M pip a 4 h c Cry h o 0 o ao a O 06 d N N G o 47 A. 0. N 00 M 41 y Cl r4 b O h O O Ir N ^i 06 t6 Yi o ti 4 06 t< ~ e o V V wl a a w a v a .-. Cl -O M In •-� V N pp N iV N ri CO O O y a U Q Ix N N cV N N ' d t» tYAltpholl Or Park,N Aide k ' half f et-C ttYe" «7� . ' .7 ' ' I+VYetQ'Ei'�1�Qq!'lt�i170h U n!a ' s1.. ; Bgfi[�tger.�7iattiydn.Qkd 1162.: `• &.5A dor'ioimio uettla Crow C*nV*il Rd ptaeo'see the `7rg5 rWe:.{iftFX vvtth an 4* ss Q3 w Pass bstt,#d by the . Blslmp:f3al�Trattgparta,- . ' tl�n Cdttttlr e;�g ao Sm '5:84 G*,26 $r38 &A7 6.Ai 5i�17. :ii:50 7 tti,. 720 732 a:3a Ttoo 700 i oa 7�os 7sR4 VM ' iq A117 7ig6e �a: 7 7:39 7.9v 'Y:92, 784 706 . 7 38. 7 47.>744 '3)47 7.5010 E 7:48 7tAs IAV 7:49 tai 753: ?S7 7 59 $K12 TTt36„ 6;00ft:6.1 . 04 806 809 aSjx &fie. 8:30 8:32 8r§4 4336 8'.98. fi3A2 ''8 44 8r17 8:59 9,C1Q 11e33•Jm!i9.8f ' Sabi '9zp9l3.' 3.15 :-9-78 S2f aia �rST Rift' 'Ams maty 8,2s "I 2 2s' Y<�7 Y HG 8'4Z 3fM 837: . 8 04. *44 . 3246 33!0 9354 w.915 m asses .{4?: q� 'ai3o.4* 4342 4 t .4M4. 4tA6 408 4:8 4•f2 4, G : 4..l8 -AMI :2.4 4M 4167' ' .' rw(G ,�matx saes +18sa= Ams : a3s 4tS9 : X59 6.27 sem' SM3 SM 5•Q7 l4, 5�t 1 .. 19, siw; ;i 1?< Rif ," a : S ss 6308 a 0 ' 617 9 s aY 6SS 6c3S 6 23: 6 3i : 639 Ts-36 fes. 7043 S*. a 9: 7:07 L W03 ?tflS ?WT ! i d 7iY1.i 7=18...;,? ' ■`- ' - - +�+ir+.r...wr .:-f�$,Q/�l�T'CGfi[1HC�'n11E ZFtA.►M1`Cri . C'�GTA°tai�tBoCntes'rapF�esam en[y Q Trabsf*r Point . „.ttiirsa•VNlth:a:.rod�Sri��aie;wait:ivr �,. &dt4tit `:':cgttniec#fei'!Sr-��e�IEy:+NYi�i[ti 5 io: Scfidol Do Ys iSttty Tiio iinm4k.publi'shad its CCCTA t� 1#YtlBtxs>ts'Xtisei;ttOtt[+6t7Fcy . AYyI Light Typo, Xlnt6tablsi and bract+uros da not l"a accominodsxe o pas�trtrger:,County a ae:,.tce dtsrsr PPA' bold Lypp 3Tt;CIFsHte pY'vr�x,bvt. Craiinsietto.d bv3 opiscsiors.sra pl�sed,tti ere.a*nmximntio4U for stiorrnal RTC tricta+untt and Hold*srs ride free, W.P1t 40r'at�i}ving tTalrts a to.threa.(3) trips-:Alf timetabtoa are sublaci to 10"Ij s in 10 AIA.anAi L F'Zw:ei+etyday a*,Faaries<beybno"r�shacl Igd tteR+:! strange without notice lm4-time Whet%.6.003e=_MY- B s.hap Retrch+60wivyet fide.f'REE with an . 'Ets9��?ss.Bus.�ayr�.is�rue+i:�5y:ttta r3lstsxfp.`Ftar�th • '7Y+afiapttrfati�ts:Cen,t�e';r� '. ' goo$ 90- .. '' I�in;dtCrnur �� tar,:&4{Xdo lrrdeaOt�iKd� ,yama� tot Cmrltlttin itllntbib` tt T;. CAmlao 9nhintt +� Grrovq�lW3pco lxatiw141a i . " r, f;•; .� 9600 Mftoheil Or Put*N Ride. Craw Canybn Rd 6'W.' .:artiz 6:T . 6-.A2•: $i Ming.6lahrx12i-A'aiich.uaing Craw 6.9, 6:33 .er15, 1 . :; y' 7:T , wv� yw w �y : ce uslag'"llriger Onnyoti Rd IBIS.` . t#eaa ess plead* 1her- 3. it 5169' .5:11 117 g1 x;v CAA 6:45 . CO. GAP :6:64,.-host. s:.ig'. x oa.: .7.:m ,:�;rtar 7:12 7:iS 1-11D, 7:20. 5:24 7 12;77: 7 34 �: 9s+f0'• 7 Ssi. 4x.. tiw 7*," 7:89 '7 A4 7:51 7:SS, 7:57 &0..0 SCOT &09' '•6411 821. 8:23 SA7 7;So 7:V.8 7:857%'B: 'HzoZ `wbd. *07 ;nzon $-14. pi18 i e:T5.' EZ:1@. 8.:21. 9:23. :9:37,• 8:39' . B#32' .>�;33:' :8:35' :6:43 ;� " : : �. i _t F, 3:951 .4.10.4.10 *03 4"06 4 OY 1C:KNB. •4:. 7'` 4:='. 01010 453 "7A3 5:05+S 44 . .4•76. far _9a 4 3s des o tc5o• e18 , S,Q'3;3 45 5:119 `�TCxt41 5si, 5 X59 Sf 03 SSS 54311 5.4� 9744 5A5 7 s .5 623 Gas 8:33645 6'tY Gip.. ; ..' b7t3a1 6'.39 &..'7, 6tS4 07'75 4Ef dill✓ 7 1§ F`. fl F .7&G Yes: 777'0.: 7. z :r 7' .Yo. TFt1r.8J4RT cvtiiTe tivr>$6huwnOr•. Stshbp Ranch empaoyetrr :ate 'trAr,sfer Roam GCCTia 6ah+EdUfe3:iapiartaitc c�{ty 466.PA!tvAth an i=xprpss Those W14ta o re enstsfa waYcfor, aus Paas iswerd by.ti�e 8lsho Runsh TFansparts-' School 1;0"!. LOOM,;g<Oereily inP wil 5 to ifw�CenntBr ' S Schaala7ays on1Y 'LS ar►inutbs The times published In igCCT,A slaKi7aaae€lvar taaction}scttfty tlaata 131es tir+d.broG$Ure"tia riot AhA I.igtyt,type Yo €ori 7i? otaf>1Errp8 875 ' at1>h3 .seiviCe dfstiiPtkyns..isut' .t"Iwl Bciii"Typ�, Caltnttt9art hits�1LlTTr t+lat+t�d:ty ai�a'p�roxlmattaTrs fcr rwrma! RTC A coue%C, 1416'ld6rs ride frge wg1t aYCivitMj{itlln#pp.�o thnoa# 1 t>ipr..All: liri Maes are airbf eet.to batwa+6;i'itri4ibii nra i n. ie' �( trtiiiiucb9t': rtta.nge,Olthotttriotice_ Atv gtY Apr '. ,'t +'dhf!t'h�tC�k'f.�idAit�tiGpA►-' . tl9sheptta�di 60Yirrysi.Gertta� . maxt0aaa:Cir -_ . . '. . .'. kt f{hkep Raved l�arrk'61'Rias qq 6 p '' •a�wch; • � i. ��,b,7�nnon 'auQt _.7 t wl,nprWneh ..,,,y,... ?pi. .. - is " 1lMIYQ4� 6 7MI1liC I �p�y�aap� suaRT. f?fa 1c alaH. 4fVaolovif .:a1 m Aot c rl Iltanlntl pv R'- 70 Oc ikin NAPT .CSA IQ61Y?e W OYbIIN �Lf••.•.' ■IAS¢��� mlot MART i Dubilr>IPImaanton Crow Canyon Rd S1.shop RatiiCh t. z'.• - :, a_ . �: � � • ;gym Stat# R:AA: ¢`59. '7: 9115:: 7:07 ieil 7aY7 ?.78,. ,.�: :7n': ':TZ:: 7' :703 '1 i �3 ' ? !7 7;T+4 `f,2g '7 :.7:35 f27' x`.41. 7+13 _9t4t5: ;-<.�:503',i x:53' 8 a aPlsirs=P{eat#ariUorn •'7 T' 7c 7 :fiWIL r+ 45 249 B:S2 3:54' 3$' },,, �. .:A 16 a:`f9 4:� 4 4�8 +k3Q '•4^,� `4'.91;_ �1:3r7 �1�8 moi. 'SC10 � ass A :' 436 4ZT :8�4 4 7 4:59` R 0.3 B IS,. SOIL S 1y. 'f:4.t.. .S,1A 3:45 ^Se45 :. ' �. Serving f316hop .509 ;dt09 8.11 V12 6344 Ranch using Crow - t,>3rtygn Ad. Si�strtgp l6n, t e+vlptc�j ees rsd .fU w,Ith an 1`or""tee(Jalhg 1~xpres3.Bus -ass'1 Aj6d Iaq ikii:66hop Aar►th DOMM4er Can-YCW.PCJ 7Yar►sEadi tgttori..Cecr. plea..®e.see the 970B. ear 4414• _ ,•_ ion rlrinao% 1 f °"'�' 7 ( - Cemtna Ramo...._ .IgchM+Rna.ch � ' Cn.vAnotn .'.y _ -- - MCC .. 6I.aMet1'�t6'KliY tl•cvrawTo�taco Slsniat l EltsriT �;. stmi.gp Itr'rsnv� t...'• �. ,,.�yy,, ' b. X11_ ... �,• T � � 'CIF: �"wl * �8 •• Li •�t SART t F7``• Ak '� p .z 'Fw CS�uN�1 ts�lt�intal,. 04 Sonfroger Canyon Ad Bishop Ranoh F Serving:Misho Ranch) Y. 6.90 6-.45 .6:47 6.49 61$1 6cS3 64$ 6s9 7:01 7004:: 7105 7:30 7 4d 7:13 7:1'7 T." . 7:21 T'i2S• 725 7•s29: ?Z'i 744 s Using. U3kilinger 71 �, 7s36 7 +15 7-Al. 7:49 7151 7!'68• 7:+39 749 .M01 M04 Canyon fit! 8:15.. 9.17 6:19 6:21 8:3:8 .8:25 bs29 8¢31. .8:34• 835 9:00 4x14: For taerviae ueillg 8:1T'•i. e>4;S $4,7, 4:49 - , 8:51. iep-5& 'SCSI; p 59' 9101 ' 9:04. :% ' 1 Gmw G13nyen Rd !t fr 83f 8-45 301y: 2140 8s'6'1' SsOb: 911tS AM$% ,4101' 44M 41.44, a as pl 9ee+see the 870C. 401* .' 4 Odd ..�6 obOl .. 4:10 4:14 4:16 4:'19 4*0 4711" .{}9 4Qa .0 4,.36 , 444( ••4,4.4 :4 449 4:50: 5.19 r'gd195 61che 4ennth trnpinyeas .:5..... 8:1� "'5;14 :5:16' Sit9 SSD •5�. ...8 rick FRFX.VVW an Express d. l e17a:.:• t 4 s 8isf Pass iRsued by the. . t�sAtap NttncM ttansporta- tion Cinter APPENDIX D Bishop Ranch Employment Centers 171 L 77t ,U1, -at- ............. N49 �7, fit xtl .ml APPENDIX E County Connections Adapted policy for Service Expansion r . �'i�,T�G"�Ii- Stir+vfCx Parrpa0s�t�o POLICY: In April of t941;CCCrA daopa d a P4lICY ap: ezvi is�in aonstratian FmjWm WWOh was generA 30.Utm and Which CMMtmd four elamer►s $Admsftg ma#WzWtw of ft mdt ing-s)vt sr4 fm dal pla=h3g end' toutdbu.ficus by mmmber qua isdietiotts,pwfaral=e meu nm fmnaw sarvices, gadA mmmu ion ptta*deAmWom. in Py 2WO.the Opecadem and.So mg Ft�&cS)c'�+*...mi++ .-requested t tat.staff take Pnotf w look at this arm and dembp amore comprebosive sex cif guidelines for am ix expansion that would set primi6m and include defiitions for=vice , dcvelopmeat. . Assumatior�s . 1. Tfie recammendadons herein are consW=t with CCCTA's Mission 3�t" - 2. All ties*service stall be subjem-m ttie prod tcdvitysxandu&confined in CCCTk's?rot advity S mdards.Mcy—forie_vy service. 3. All tim or=pmved.servim r644emed lyprivn#e entities shaD ba fully s.ubsidimd byte a ptdv=emtity. TMsmbsidy sbor3ld indude full subsidy of r all opmating cost;and any-last gpp ity cost"and capital cost(if pass la). gists s£►all be adjustmd at least°hiannualily to m5f lect the acmal . ccast:of p�ts�idiag.tlie,serYi4e. 4: All riev.so ce.shab far ih=Uning and minimi e dea&iead and icon productive tima and/or mlz& 5. All new smda,--sags tho avaUgOty'Of opera#ittg fids..whctbtt public or private, and The availabOty of vies and l=uM iaC ur=(drivels)to apmttthe scrvim Wftbout neptiveiy hv=ing.cxistrng ficrvi No new service in smy.razgory shall.bt undmuken without adecltm finds to continue tit se-vim for at least one,full.Year,.o iuu.fig case 4f limited-u= atwsf %,,for the time period retested. ; • f�. Tilt;piotxties:acid aasumptiotts lsYn fly only to..geiaeraZ�rbfic serwi�cs. . and not to spcm6zed smmm for ALBA ebpble rider as pravidt by LEM orities Me. 7BA:d helow.rctpo . pri giaie that itmtn>tents made in one . primrily area may also betieat mem in anodes primp ity mea Ox—, ' improv= mm for routes serving camumm may also'bmalit the tramit I. The prioritim l 1p v r.FmImalitide.=`adve appt cies to-=viaprovision, tndvdlK the use of vmsj tlex rnutMg,subSOiptxon servicss,sabstiMtion of NO 9. A :r _ v+ti W. tori: Ic.be�trin s asci H'c��^ti :: ? S ?ra ii s7? #M--**'y 6:1�t-hod o 4. JuMbic F:.•f'. 777 � SPtai �3tt"4}m>wl�atle+d m': istpn`hers,ffi.- tze axtiL t~ n i � � mg. far ior itts2: hum .• rsrat? s: stcit + .1irb= km dal the abo hie to y.`suh�i`df i by fmr whicft#i24. WYMe at&h g g:sa*riticd. yrciilatcu= '`ice::S:a�vfccch-saves a:-tie cmmttaity.ojr a all d$y, arnf ras�ci�iatd� It st vyC�x t`o�i snd:deatkmdonf4me of which is a'Cmtiat unbar s 3 isx ct+ax o shopping arca. t; iatom Wq aiso se"e cir; WO krts 'Cbmlb. nsy 6e zt tart:t is la aak� tpnatr Coeeadp the -tie" �lz�att�e: ' dcrosnd for.ps�ng i�ihe d� �vu t�t�� - -i Ccritrta Scs;,', xt� ird�e��cox�ver,��arit'b$A'�t`�'$ii�ir�g tfxc����ro MM3l uu peak 'toku h t t jas°x l to sxt his,ted: vfnch'opexstes with :ottji # to va aid:des ttst'.$lternatiues s+�i SiIIg1e Bcedre. gm.fo.asitinguc,a ixtolvic'adftan of oue:lzcatxr £sn �s ry ;:K iri oafs € rtnm 0& agar ;caved t�y14 x sad wbicb may ar &Y not Y*iii dcjifida :`t*qn i n-tnd dr�v art;to, �, `th 6 �xP iat��- ch do `nit r�tu��Qi� �v�uc `pt:t�zi�v�rs,�ltntid taloa ptr,�dc�cac.avis thlose that do. paic s M taipP+ ar. cm.;6d.a.hiO&pn �'M g ve to�c searvic ;+ mpbnds-lo Om neeof tyc t&t dkimdant users. Pxiorityw l;t o.be g .te sc +ti c pa is s iz Sucled istyaan baa mars adopted ' .'+ ���t7.'�ViX�� ���•���i.3�iiii��F3.1•C?k.} ' , 4 t1h6i i:, &=vim Wwah.tix'Ng -mm,Wed.OD ft ac-goal hY a'i 1 iit t "upod Oallab ty of icles,the subsidy may a�sd iJ:utie a� <cast�:�cr�w+sh}tti�s: per baiii Or at Iasi iz v r $ s c ecrl tea ij!9ti apr a4 t1 1 Ewe st]tet so% 1o + i ut.tt}mx: snn$south orrautcs which 2=1aatotm of v�rbiich do 6t 2ffCCt �f .664=6 vhich iSu not iegaire am do of dac}vc ;at toter r strses erg ' aro�t passenger lrpii : Lbw sera :." t Ems&:t Ft `i�C 'o a di swAce and. wh �n�dup� .�g a�..a9'';wh�ch� a si�vv area.or nGw not ty ► idt .or, b which is SUMdlxedan :by Eh ugvestmg. suz Ivr:t»w: ds:aw .:tc .lC "'A, ,. out'bo odtlrjduilntr fira4, ' ri�fw C ICttLQ1�+1tg uR'taIE39, tilloy 8t0 hY the Jzt .2l.:-1995CM . chnol Ai Ixiises seiooltt a tirsmasai thnes ov3ucbrpaates :sr�a 1 a - . .y &mss a ► ti t0. atc°. school mil tzmCs rx x a Oo°.ice gene al ptit Sgt tods to y 3 try:loads of imdt l si.�+ool mil:# sc was�ttt is 'or two AC'S sud M mak tt�Ps- - Tb�rs®eraII:acral tib �2�rvf�e�s:w oto suidat�tra�portstiod`frir$cYiools, wiuoh do riot havo. rw schoa�bus"se iac r�gf# •w alt siticrs paying: .. to ,vr.using:a rcg'ular 20-or ri tiiich n{ a a i. .a deftc4 moi;c�parmortdP o d pe ioda r 'arveys,� fM 3 ) ; nsst.dcgeniianey de iced by income,avail r d'A..Vehic�#a MRke the rip,and. saa df a va�.d tdnry er's picse::` r A any of the fIDNOw n ttttotit. g.:tutaz ' Cu drit' . Aft-ft • bat kelp.off:°ht 7. t thebeomiuS.t:rtmd of tha day,or a inn; w o sr,go atFt of=vim. d s crew�. .0 WAS Mtn. W f 4 ttt ,s dirtflvat inaeaaing :�nSfi=. �► �1�1�.S�C'ty' 8Ct�C�6� Z�8C8�; T ;SC;S iiLl 'q1 �8t t e di t3i7'itian:pf St .wWn�ia8 1i .res 'b if fhrr i ige a�f A: : '"` , ria�m high 3Di by pric�riiCy BattGuiliii9 I7€um'c f'apet t a(Il y4iid otie fi c Iier or iafar baseiiou band' • SS E vitt over hi .. G .zaiit wblch have m W to tmd;�g tx':morce than45'n„n,.+r�. atoicpd�c ►e}s :($nyirievfthe . frsIitwln - ' �'ra�vmg t�tret��r�l � pt�c�ctc;�ii�e ivnta��s�i � wcr . � 5e �miants'�oall�;: quit�`adc3�`i�?a�'ii��a'acr:�s 3�i'tI�fcxm ark . viq#t ;�frivcrs' .fuadiii T itis5uag ieti ;whir t�tk aocomplishad'wittLoial Adffifimnl dd -or vddzieS;vM.talre priority over twttim 46'. -Plar do. G Imp�flveticu ;.arltiahise' th�tC' '1 : il spiv-,#iiarity (for e ple,w�3f ''u5.�wa k t,a_add-ftdayl sotvitscttr tiradhv�s). �, trt Ste °iric�udng Imt tat�i�saated to: . mqu v", etitsi whit > oiisl fpr3F skins ..• ►�vtl btu.tpctste:3i3tidigg : ">xwon-pr=ty, 'fuy �prnci Ictami_ty cogs;gird -Y W.ty to'PaEfioy: � ,I,W•6m. i�3t i�c�ateias �i�p.`�aia<�p Via:o>� as mi rii ► tyu ifu8- 3 yr i f:C Aliws. Thein Rt,tr,Cc�13a :, .. • . 41. .� :1 t 4i• _ 'moi:i .:y: • `./.: s! 0 • � i,�se�ve�far :.psaad- ShEy t? geiifo:, ic .. . "' gGt1,�s t� i� tT�or� 1;� ►- m�tors�cailecov�rs OT kv SDS tieii d;�iy:.t� i t ml i r; c c ;iaf:btbarIlimd party if tires erg to be. sri; .sfl is:fine. fThG smv=can: �t�J10 1Y1#��A: g 1�Qvt4 '�hc t asci t ik�rcL tas :n t a�s t3►Issue '4 hero t tis ict.( r ttao l.'?att Psis far�additiojW cin en itridlsirtrTos��%eaddd.�:piaivtr�e.`flt��v�ce . DATE OF ADOVI".NII . I CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'Y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 Pine Street,North Wing - 4" Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: (925) 335=1290 " Fax: (925).335-1300 TO: Aruna Bhat,Current Planning FROM: 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#99-3032 and 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. Some 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: 1. If the service is not utilized or otherwise unsuccessful can a mechanism be established to eliminate the service and correspon61g-assess hent? 2. Can different assessments be levied to the different housing types in the development(a question from the developer)? ISSUES TO 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 cannot be known until the project is substantially completed,which will be some years in the future. The funding mechanism must be established before the project a occupied, therefore, the funding mechanism needs to provide the flexibility to. implement any of the options described in the report. A funding mechanism,that has sufficient capacity to fund the most expensive options in the report(Options A-1 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 funding mechanism is.not established in the next 12 months, itwould be advisable to.get either updated cost estimates or confirmation of the costs found in Table 12(page 3 A 0)service providers prior to setting a service cost to be funded by the project funding mechanism. Modifications Required to Complete Report Provide Tor.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)then 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 tern planning options. • Automated payment mechanisms currently available(TransLink,-PayPal,etc.)should make collecting fares or distributing passesmuch.less burdensome to administer. o From a business standpoint,potential users of the 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 of the Alamo Creek . Transit Fee will be commuter service.and thus exempt (Code of Federal Regulations = Title 49 Transportation,Section 37.121)from complementary paratransit service requirements.All other information in this section is speculative and is outside the scope of work of the study. 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.Other 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 of this service. Responses to.Comments "The senior units may be residential'care and the owner/operator thereof must use best efforts to provide transit shuttle service." The residents of the senior care facility are not likely patrons of the transit service.However,the employees of the 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 best 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,CDD T.Ric,PWD L.Theis,PWD M.Torre,Shapell C.Dahlgren,CCCTA T.Williams,Danville L.Bobadilla,San Ramon acreek.doc EXHIBIT 4 Canvass of Votes Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez DATE: January 17, 2006 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Maurice M. Shiu, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Results of the Ballots Cast for the Proposed.Assessment for the territory within the boundaries of the "County Service Area T71 (Public Transit)" (CSA) I, Maurice M. Shiu, Public Works Director for the County of Contra Costa, State of California, having canvassed the return of all votes.cast for the proposed assessment for the territory within the "County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit)" (CSA) held between November 22, 2005 and January 17, 2006 do hereby certify the following to be a full, true and correct Statement of Results of all votes cast on the following measure: Annual Assessment for,the territory within the boundaries of the "County Service Area.T-1 (Public Transit)" Yes 7 No I further certify that the total number of ballots cast at said election was seven and attached hereto are the total ballots received for and against assessment. cc: Teri Rie, Public Works Department EXHIBIT 5 Engineer's Report i `� GEOTECHNICAL . ENVIRONMENTAL y' WATER RESOURCES I N C O R P O R A T E D CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ENGINEER'S REPORT for COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (CSA T-1) ALAMO CREEKANTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 23, 2005 2010 Crow Canyon Place•Suite 250•San.Ramon,CA 94583-4634• (.925)866-9000• Fax(925)866-0199 www.engeo.com E/YGEO INCORPORATED TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CERTIFICATION OF FILING...................................................................................................1 I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................3 II: BACKGROUND................................................................................................................3 III. COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (CSA T-1) 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 CSA Boundary EXHIBIT A—Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties CSA Budget EXHIBIT B—Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties Legal Description 4063.1.700.01 November 23, 2005 ENGEO INCORPORATED ENGINEER'S REPORT COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES CERTIFICATION OF FILING ENGEO Incorporated makes this report for the proposed County Service Area T-i (CSA T-1) Board of Directors. The County.Service Area (CSA) is intended to provide commuter transit service for the Alamo Creek and Intervening Properties ("Integrated Project") developments. The CSA 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. COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-l (CSA T-1) BOUNDARIES IV. MARKET ANALYSIS V. SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION VI. SERVICE LEVELS VII. ASSESSMENT METHOD VIII. ASSESSMENT LIMIT- BUDGET 4063.1.700.01 November 23, 2005 1 EMGEO INCORPORATED The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer's Report. Q�kOfESS/ . Date: By: ENGEO Incorporated w P. 2166, Ezp. n I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report was filed on the day of Clerk of the Board Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties County Service Area Contra Costa County, California I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report was approved and confirmed by the CSA Board on the day of President of the Board Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties County Service Area T-1 Contra Costa County, California APPROVED 4063.1.700.01 November 23, 2005 2 EA GEO INCORPORATED ENGINEER'S REPORT for COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-I (CSA T-1) ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING 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, County Service Area T-1 (CSA T-1) 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. COUNTY SERVICE AREA T-1 (CSA T-1) BOUNDARIES The boundaries for the CSA are shown in the diagram attached hereto as Figure 1. 4063.1.700.01 November 23, 2005 3 EMGEO INCORPORATED IV. MARKET ANALYSIS Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) completed a Transit Improvements Study of the Integrated Project in March 2005. The study acknowledged that a-lirnited 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 Inte�n-ated Project, ]0,048 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 November 23, 2005 4 ENGEO INCORPORATED V. SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION To offer service during early phases of construction commensurate with demand, WS recommends a phased service implementation strategy for the CSA. 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 CSA 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 arulual 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 CSA 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 CSA budgets. 4063.1.700.01 November 23, 2005 5 EIGEO INCORPORATED VII. ASSESSMENT METHOD The services described in Sections V and VI will be availableto all residents within the CSA boundaries. The proposed service provides a benefit to all residents within the Service Area. The Service Area Engineer hereby finds that the properties within the Service Area receive approximately equal special benefit from the service offered by the CSA. As a result, the assessment is distributed among all residents within the CSA. Owners 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 CSA and therefore will not be assessed. The total number of single-family and multi-family unit residents within the Service Area is then divided into the annual Service Area 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 CSA, there will be an initial deferral of service; the "start-up" vanpool service will begin upon issuance of the 300`h building permit within the combined projects. if warranted by demand, an escalation of service will occur upon the issuance of the 600`h building pen-nit. The Service Area 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 to the owner of the particular residential unit. 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 November 23, 2005 6 ENGEO INCORPORATED TABLE 1 —ESTIMATED RESIDENTS AND ASSESSMENT PER DWELLING DWELLING 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 dwellings 2.15 $ 230 (Assume 10-19 apartments per structure) This assessment will escalate annually based on the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consumer Price Index. 4063.1.700.01 November 23, 2005 7 ENGEO INCORPORATED EXHIBIT A Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties CSA Budget 4063.1.700.01 November 23, 2005 0) co � O co In ' � O ' O O N h O t- O LO CD N UO O r- N (D 0) N N LO L d O L ' O (fl C co r M M (A In r CO N C`') Cl) r r 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 (713 69 co CO t- CD N (O ' ' ' V' r- (o Cf') O (A Cf) ('� O (D N O O LO O Ln L r (D r (.D Cl) n O Cf) N <- M C.[) V r- ti Cl) O t- t� r (O CO (b r t- .- N E9 ER 69 E9 E9 E9 E9 69 69 69 69 ~O a)00 tl - O O O ' ' ' O t- r U') co N Cl) O O O CEJ O (b r CO t- COO CO (D U) (D CD Cl) U7 V (D In t- CO O Cl) .r- <- CD co N co Q r UU.) 69 69 E9 69 69 69,69 69 69 69 69 — O O CD O m (A O O O (A (A co N N CD � Lr 00 OO O (bmP U) N V O O O V r (D .,. (xi CA (D Cd V' (O M V' C R QU 69 69 69 E9 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 ' (n d Cn 00 0 i 00 O W a) 'a N O � O a mO O ` r X � E9 Ef3 En 69 E!!-Y (� 69 Efl � 6969 E9 W z � � N N w U O E c m v m c v .Z Q C :3 o d d (1) U) N LU U C Q m 7 LL W W LL O O C a C U) Z W M (n (n V) a � z° z LL W 0 0 0 ° xLU C) d c U U V U W >_ >_ aa) W `�° rnrnrn( � � W � > a� c9 W .0Y t`9 ;o U) F- W Z Q O a U U z a a Q O .O U o w W Q Cd U ENGEO INCORPORATED EXHIBIT B Alamo CreelJIntervening Properties Legal Description 4063.1.700.01 November 23, 2005 "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 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 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 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 14°28'00", 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 05012'56" 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 72051'09" EAST 248.70 FEET; THENCE 13) SOUTH 19°5523" 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 "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA." ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 17) SOUTH 13°32'28" 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°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 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 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 84°47'59" 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 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 5057'34",,A CHORD DISTANCE OF 216.56 FEET; THENCE 45) NORTH 76°26'29" EAST 402.94 FEET; THENCE "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA." ALAMO CREEK/ 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 114 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, THE CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATION SYSTEM 1983 DATUM COORDINATE IS N 2,284,370.68, E 6,438,799.75; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING 1) NORTH.01°12'32" EAST 1693.82 FEET 2) NORTH 01°12'32" 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 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 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°00'18" 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 1 1) 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 90°14'59", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 28.34 FEET; THENCE "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA." ALAMO CREEK ! INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 16) SOUTH 87°57'58" EAST 46.24 FEET; THENCE 17) NORTH 00°51'07" EAST 50.01 FEET; THENCE 18) SOUTH 87°57'58" 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 12°35'35" EAST 1024.98 FEET; THENCE 22) SOUTH 10°28'23" 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 w NCS. F333 ; I it ;~ m J i G�dfJNp,T�SSgJ J7A CAMINO TISSAJARq 0 a h� a m it cn Go n I� M "a _T -i m Cil 0 r CD 'v U) m C cn co m a L4 r rwo - o n �� �� 8a u� v c aj o U o g�' D Qp'VorZ Q)O)ZZOFI Xom . 1vcD�DNDrri n r '00 7 �WOOQ'C3CO m LA LA ro LnOOOhaf7ZA c z Z Ch A 0-J�1 Q} O r C` BE OYOtl X N3 Y (�� V)� > —SLA04Nwwt DRI4L Q WD rn z 0) >- b CD m Z m y ^r 00 > rn z rn v �� u v n v} I D r - �' N A N n ri. D n Cb S.- -0n> (.+ N W �'''�. 0�,� 0 II I�II moo. vin[n o ppZO � �.� o F W�� �i y X07• ZOm o L" � Q9i� � oAo ^� =o r 1 I Cn G7 O �.9 rn o �a (T7 9 a b v) N csa N D D I y 000 m -1 DNI I rnn� m co >C..WOO i O O o cf) do �, SEE I SHEET 3 4 �_ 1 000--�\-o � �,�� � � o Z ; / i m Z 11) - 000 I nZ0 '� titio� � I /� r I o � u r -4 1 N�NNO m �n c,��2v y I Q 10 (D � -I OOO- C �7 � N r IJ -- - Z I O rn0 o W 6 z I rn 2 N n - N r o 3i OrJ-.-GJ O Ui �Tl 69 �iq o A + D I! Iii m o I A N ain > I 1 T 115 I 'O= 0000)0ZD g A IoNAO u I Q 32 33 ON �4-�Kl>0 z o S O I .o N m I n, 5 I 4 SECT. COR, r, z��, O" w. I N I T 21 0 0W"� C., N N ODM O l J W `w i 6,. I ? I I o Y cn �A �° �WZ� Cn O 0 i Q �� W 0 Lo 4 C5 Cr1 D D w c A �^ R E 0 N N 0 w � - u Z �°� �, L.O. I. o . I I I m cn Ln O �Z O j I 0 o r n rn� m O L4 v v a o z I tv * (D (n N w j --�O)r 0 Q1 N ,D N I 0 I m WO stn w l J LAN) �O N I I � Z I O v to 0) Ln LO ;� O r* cn u 00 0 i m p 6, a _ is 0 I w u'N m Q) I 1 0 rn w O 0 u rn c \'- " � N o �o I �� v C 11 I O .4 �` � � 6 0 N I _ n, p rr \ Z r� 0 I 0 i 0 O m Zci co CVl, I I Q1 I N I N f N n m A N w L. O ( 00 �Ln I o u 00 L. r' o 00 0 N ? w y -4 u w v N m I cn n rIj O I 1 W I O v � 0 �o J N O rn � m C.n 1 > r-N 89'01'17' W 247.65' 2� I I II 1 N �_- - - - - - - - - - - - — — - - - -L - - - (rO u 0 S 89'01'17" E 3955.81'(TIE) -�� � 0 o I c0 $ UI w u c. 1 \! 206-160- r. o Isrna+Ln yo U1 i 013 a � LAwUAm < w O Zc u, y m ni N WONN y 206- 160- 0 7Z 09 pN W— n � 01 ! m u � i a �� w3 , ` 306-160- CDM m" N � o LP �,N o a O, 00 .i O� oon 0cOalry hi 206-160- m �o a n N D11 = o 0 ch a� (Ao, a MV v rn 9, A A Z O ,� •6 ��i O'V T CD O f °' rn o N 88'49'33" W 3897.41'(T)� 0 U �0°o. o rn w )..0 223-010-OD6 223-010-01 �vN ° o O S 44?S�8 5�49' �yW X33.16'© 0 �Q� 223-020-017 W 3052263.56 EXHIBIT "B" PLAT MAP SUB-PARCEL 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 400 0 200 400 am 1600 SCALE 1"=400' ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 400 ft. EXIST. CAMINO TASSAJARA= 10 RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC 1146.07 S 05-33'2B" E O .S 78°02'16" E 840.37' w S 79°26'06" E 129- 83' O w R=2296.66 O ON 78'02'16" W 347.00' L=214.43' -� L=05'20'58" C=214.35' OS N 01 '28'35" E 25.4.2' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O4 N 0.1 °28'35" E 14.90' SUB-PARCEL 1 R=1950.20' L=187.74' 3 L=05'30'56" C=187.67' 206-030-023 S 88°41 '01" E 918.99' O 1- - - 206-030— � 206-030-0261 027 N 00'32'59" W 22.91 ' I --N 73'1843" E 428.94'(TIE TO MON. N 11'11 '17" W 288.51' 206-030-02 BLAVE R=1950.21 ' .59 W L=492.41' N 12 1OL=14'28 00 \� C=491 .10' "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA" '16,26,; E 41B-OB' 30 ALAMO CREEK / INTERVENINGPRC) TIES 3 N 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 & 223-020-017(POR) APRIL 17, 2005 SHEET 3 OF 6 98-1009-11 8381—LAFCO.DWG EXHIBIT "B" PLAT MAP SUB-PARCEL T GRAPHIC SCALE 400 0 200 400 Boo 1600 I SCALE 1"=800, ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 800 ft. EXIST. CAMINO TASSAJARA--, / RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC S 05°33'2 8 E 1146.07' 10 S 78°02'16" E 840.37' SUB-PARCEL 1 9 I O , S 79`26'06" E 129:83' O R=2296.66' O L=214.43' a=05'20'58" N 78°02'16" W 347, 00' C=214.35' O _ N_05'12'56 E R N 01 '28'35" E 25.42' O 11INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA" ALAMO CREEK / INTERVENING PROPERTIES N 01 -28'35" E 14.90 CONTRA COSTA COUNY, CALIFORNIA O 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(POR) R=1950.20 APRIL 17, 2005 OL=187.74' L=05'30'56" ASSOCIATES . C=491.10' CUL ENIONEERING• PLA MNG• 3URVEM0 1440 Moria lane, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, Colifornio 94596 SHEET -4 OF 6 98-1009-11 Phone: (925) 932-6868 Fax: (925) 932-0910 8381—LAFCO.DWC tP SHADOW CREEK DR. - HANSEN LN. N 2,288,3B4.38 E 6,438,872.69 n CAM! 0 TASSAJARI I S 87'57'58" E 338.35' 18 � p L4 - �'4 24'09., 7. 0)a V) 555,i 555• 1' z 19 n x, Ln m (Q {JY CD o a n �tO ca m !o E v, �--� p m i C?' i Oro Ca 10 I c r Q p rn" p pi cn - L4 Ln (n} > Cr t CASABLANCA S "n' 119 rn U' CP > {n N > a W! 062 ( z O I m CA o as � > c� O 063 f^� z f �) rn cro �J �o z D 120 v t O r = GERBERA ST z p 0 co --{ 206-4B0-117 O N U�pzZZ O tz1 APN 206-490 016 - ,��. o ~1 �. - - ca ( I - n �> 15 o oo 'o yD �" r�' N Cp N D(:U*1 3" --� = W ! 7 N o z NOS (}1Tt� +�m r Ula N o z I '�..1m' co 0)z -0 L,4 0 0 1 V)�C7 -0 IAPN . I p p ( t3 m m o { o � M .0 0 a�`�� Z. n { a cn c, tr+ A _ , m W o + ca 1 —000 0 c- C_. O 2 ( a \ Q a} u v I NtvNO►�* r�► c� Q 2IQ Lv �� N� NJ tnND N�op�•' Z A AIli PN oz � � "' o oaz GY�W� Z� m� (�} 0 N / o w �OOON0ZD M � \ l_ _ °o' /j G co 0 -1 P Cr D O Z r _ _ , — _N - � o ��6e Q r J-TI \ N / / o U± C, M1 O'n �{ \ o J I Na to OoLn rQ Z D U) APN \ 4 0/ i 0. �t ��'jD�D 206-•140-029V / >�\ f j // \ o z (" v w m z / 4: U+ U) APN (v W R° 206-140-tJ17 ' c, to to, APN 206-140--006 n i 0 M \O \ rn7> APN (DN v o G (� . 206-140-012 ;uo z ti ti 00 m r o N r• \ �O or Z �t ` O to 27 U,P, APN o n*N 206-140-020o ti ^�� . N 88'58`18" w 1063.07' 25 Q m rn v rn z rJ 'p r` Oi > N m �� o� } o m 0 all ° z I z p0 vwco i _ o of O av' rn w at l0 O p O O O A V Ch I I A W Ln co b O N m to 6 EXHIBIT "B35 PLAT MAP SUB—PARCEL 2 "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA" ALAMO CREEK / INTERVENING PROPERTIES 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 & 223-020-017(POR) APRIL 17, 2005 zoo 0 100 200 400 U m Z i r1Zy - N m IQ w c GRAPHIC SCALE co h�j ( IN FEET ) ca w i i c 1 inch = 200 It. o w� co Ln a b N 03'19'39" W CAMINO TASSAJARA 37.66'(TIE TO CL) S87'57'58"E 889.59' (TIE) `A=90'14'49" m Z w S87'57'58"E 46.24' 16 R=20.00' 0 N m L=31.49' o Viz° o, C=28.34' 15 cow1 W d a c)) m N CD W (D O �p Z v- 0=20'54'31" uj L=32'12'15" R=239.00' r\ R=20.00' APN o L=87.22' 206-460-025 L=11.24' L=28'37'57" C=86.73' 13 - o C=11.09' R=341.29' co 026 0 S89'08'53"E - L=170.55' oz7 z N280s 102.50' �� o C=168.78' N18'37'40"W 26•. o 50.55' 12 026 N26'22'20"E 1e 277.44' 4 2�5 1�. p"E 28.28' i 1 CASABLANCA ST S89'08'5311E N� 22 2 M Z 119 � N L�=71'08'48" ��F 09,09 11 R=45.00' P.=640.00' m 06 L=55.88' L=102.24' °' C=52.36' C=102.13' w a i~ SHEET 6 OF 6 EXHIBIT 6 NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the requirements of Section 3114 of the Streets and Highways Code, the undersigned Public Works Director hereby gives notice that a diagram and assessment were recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Contra Costa County as provided for in said section, more particularly described on that certain assessment diagram filed in accordance with the section in Book of Maps and Assessments and Community Facilities Districts as Page in the Office of the County Recorder of Contra Costa County and relating to the following described real property: County Service Area T-1 (Public Transit) for the areas generally known as Alamo Creek (shown on Vesting Tentative Maps SD 8381, 8382) and Intervening Properties/Remaining Intervening Properties (shown on Vesting Tentative Map SD 8331). Notice is further given that upon the recording of this notice in the Office of the County Recorder, the several assessments assessed on the lots, pieces and parcels shown on said filed assessment diagram shall become a lien upon the lots or portions of lots assessed respectively. Reference is made to the assessment diagram and assessment roll recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Contra,Costa County. Dated: Owner Notification: ATTEST: