Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10282008 - SD.3 (3) ------ Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .•'`�� t� �' � L FROM: JULIA R. BUEREN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Costa DATE: OCTOBER 28, 2008 co '- .•�r~,�o `I�9 COUPt'� County SUBJECT: HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-27, increasing fees in the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit to fund projects in the updated Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Program, and related CEQA actions, South County area. (District III) [CDD-CP #08-451 Project No: 0676-6P4032 RESOLUTION N0. 2008/ a-7 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. OPEN the public hearing on an ordinance increasing fees in the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit. 2. CLOSE the public hearing. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ❑x SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF)BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER 4XI�1� SIGNATURE(S): QC /�/(J�Q� ACTION OF BOARD ON QC I/� /hf/O APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED � O� VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE AYES: NOES: DATE SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Contact: Jenna Caldwell 925-313.2020 JRC:tr Q \\dc-glacier\grpdata\TransEng\AOB\TVTC\Tri-Valley Transportation Council Fee ATTESTED Update\Public I-learing\BO-TVTD Fee Public Hearing_2008-10- WOW 28_CC_Revised_2.doc DAVID TWA,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS cc M.Carlson,Public Works,TE AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR C.Lau,Public Works M.Halle,Public Works TE C.Raynolds,Public Works Finance BY: (/IMS 'DEPUTY T.Torres,Public Works Engineering Services C.Kutsuris,Department of Conservation and Development 1.Ring-Reaves,Department of Conservation and Development J.Greitzer,Department of Conservation and Development County Auditor/Controller County Treasurer/Tax Collector SUBJECT: HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-27, increasing fees in the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit to fund projects in the updated Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Program,and related CEQA actions, South County area. (District III) [CDD-CP #08-45] Project No: 0676-6P4032 DATE: October 28, 2008 PAGE: 2 of 7 RECOMMENDED ACTION: (con't) 3. ADOPT and APPROVE the October 2008 Development Program Report for the 2008 Update of the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4. DETERMINE that the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Program Update activity is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Article 5, Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. 5. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2008-27, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and WAIVE reading. 6. INCORPORATE in this resolution by reference the boundaries,costs,and method of fee apportionment set forth in the attached Development Program Report and attached Ordinance. 7. DETERMINE that a majority protest does not exist. 8. DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. 9. DIRECT the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of a$25 fee to the Department of Conservation and Development for processing, and a $50 fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of Exemption. 10. DIRECT the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to record certified copies of this Board Order and Ordinance No. 2008-27 with the County Recorder. 11. DIRECT the Public Works Department and the Department of Conservation and Development to review the fee schedule every March I the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee is in effect,and to adjust for the effects of inflation or deflation as described in the attached ordinance. 12. DIRECT the Public Works Department to collect an additional administrative fee equal to 2 percent of the program revenue. 13. DIRECT the Director of the Department of Conservation and Development to monitor future amendments to the currently adopted General Plan and their impact on traffic within the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Area and to report those amendments to the Public Works Director as necessary to facilitate updating of the Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee. FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-27 to fund the updated Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee program will result in the collection of potential fees from new developments to fund regional transportation improvements within the Tri-Valley Transportation Council fee area. There will be no impact to the General Fund. SUBJECT: HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-27, increasing fees in the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit to fund projects in the updated Tri-Valley . Transportation Development Fee Program, and related CEQA actions, South County area.(District I1I) [CDD-CP #08-451 Project No: 0676-6P4032 DATE: October 28, 2008 PAGE: 3 of 7 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND BACKGROUND: The Tri-Valley Transportation Development("TVTD")Fee is a uniform fee on development to fund transportation improvements in the Tri-Valley area, both in Contra Costa County and in Alameda County. The Tri-Valley area consists of the San Ramon Valley,Livermore Valley and Amador Valley. This fee program has been in effect since 1998. The TVTD Fee provides funds to construct regional road improvements to serve new residential, office, commercial/retail, and industrial developments. Requiring that all new development pay a regional road improvement fee will ensure their participation in the cost of improving the regional road system. To determine that the fee amount is roughly proportional to the impact of the development a nexus is created. Under the existing TVTD Fee program there is a project list which the fees currently in effect are being used to fund. Since the TVTD Fee has been implemented, there have been substantial changes in the Tri-Valley Development Area's traffic circulation needs and development potential with which the TVTD Fee was originally developed. In addition, new funding sources have been established, the Action Plan has been updated, projects have been completed,and new improvements have been identified. These changes have prompted a revision to the TVTD Fee program. The current project list has been expanded to include additional projects which will serve the needs of the evolving Tri-Valley Development Area, including the Camino Tassajara Widening Project located within unincorporated Contra Costa County. A Nexus Study has been prepared which provides the technical basis for establishing the required nexus between the anticipated future development in the Tri-Valley Development Area and the proposed transportation facilities. Affordable and inclusionary housing units are eligible for fee waivers under this program. It has been determined that the activity related to the TVTD Fee program update is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"), and as such a Notice of Exemption has been issued (Exhibit `C'). The proposed updated fees will be phased in over the next three fiscal years. The current TVTD Fee will remain in effect until this new fee becomes effective in FY 2009/2010. This fee program, as well as specific fee amounts, are further described in more'detail in the sections below and in the attached Exhibits. BACKGROUND In 1991,the County signed a Joint Powers Agreement("JPA")between Contra Costa County,Alameda County,the Town of Danville,the City of San Ramon,the City of Pleasanton,the City of Dublin,and the City of Livermore that established the Tri-Valley Transportation Council ("TVTC"). The purpose of the TVTC JPA was the joint preparation of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan ("Action Plan") for the Routes of Regional Significance and cost sharing of the recommended regional transportation improvements. The TVTC adopted the Action Plan in April 1995 and updated it in 2000. The Action Plan contained 11 specific regional transportation improvements to be given high priority for funding and implementation. In 1997,the TVTC recommended to its member jurisdictions the adoption of a uniform development fee known as the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee("TVTD Fee"). In August 1998 the Contra Costa County Board of SUBJECT: HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-27, increasing fees in the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit to fund projects in the updated Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Program,and related CEQA actions, South County area. (District 111) [CDD-CP #08-45] Project No: 0676-6P4032 DATE: October 28, 2008 PAGE: 4 of 7 Supervisors(`Board")accepted a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement("JEPA")pertaining to the collection of the TVTD Fee,accepted the Development Program Report("DPR"),and passed Urgency Ordinance No. 98-36 which allowed immediate collection of the TVTD Fee. This ordinance was effective for 30 days. In September 1998,the Board passed Urgency Ordinance No. 98-41 which extended the initial urgency ordinance for an additional 30 days. On October 10, 1998, Ordinance No. 98-35 became effective to provide a permanent mechanism for collection of the TVTD Fee. The fees charged were considerably lower than what would have been allowed by the Nexus Analysis. In April 2003, the TVTC approved the fee reduction for multi-family residential and the increase for office and industrial land use categories to help eliminate project funding shortfalls. In September 2003 the Board passed Ordinance No. 2003-21 revising the TVTD Fee schedule. INFORMATION ON THE PROGRAM UPDATE The"Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study,Fee Update"("Nexus Study"),adopted January 30,2008,and amended February 26,2008,provides the technical basis for establishing the required nexus between the anticipated future development in the TVTD Fee area and the need for certain regional facilities. It has been determined that the TVTD Fee update is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. UPDATED PROJECT LIST A list of projects needed to accommodate future traffic was prepared by the TVTC.The updated TVTD Fee includes 21 projects, 11 of which were included in the previous list and 10 additional projects. In general,because most projects mitigate both existing and future deficiencies,the amount of TVTD Fee funding varies. The consultant team included a firm that specializes in studying the reasonable relationship between the impacts of the new growth and the fees proposed (the Nexus). It has been determined that there is a "rough proportional benefit"between the proposed fees and the projects receiving the funds. This is described in detail in the Development Program Report dated October 2008. Fees collected in unincorporated Contra Costa County will only be used to fund bridge/major thoroughfare type improvements. SUBJECT: HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-27, increasing fees in the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit to fund projects in the updated Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Program,and related CEQA actions, South County area. (District III) [CDD-CP #08-45] Project No: 0676-6P4032 DATE: October 28, 2008 PAGE: 5 of 7 The 11 projects from the existing project list, per Table 4.1;Exhibit A in Nexus Study, are: ID Project Total Cost TVTD Fee Share A-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange southbound to eastbound) -COMPLETE- -COMPLETE- A-2a Route 84 Expressway (1580-1680) $ 336.57 $ 221.77 A-2b Isabel Route 84/1-580 Interchange $ 180.00 $15.00 A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes $47.00 $38.33 A-4 * West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station -COMPLETE- -COMPLETE- A-5a I-580 HOV Lane Eastbound $161.87 $8.00 A-5b I-580 HOV Lane Westbound $165.40 $20.00 A-6 1-680 HOV Lane (Route 84 to Top of Sunol Grade) -COMPLETE- -COMPLETE- A-7 1-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange $0.81 $0.81 A-8 1-680/Alcosta Interchange -COMPLETE- -COMPLETE- A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 $15.50 $10.95 A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 $32.34 $32.34 A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 $23.25 $4.15 A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 $25.83 $25.83 A-11 * Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit $20.36 $12.16 inv Hr''�*5, �,r9- gi#'.4 r#�l{�n�s s .� lei .,. dj i ..,. .0101 ?. .. MROMMINNOM Total $1,008.93 $389.34 With 10% reduction to account for some degree of uncertainty $350.41 (per Nexus StlaWl *Transit/Pedestrian Type Improvements(not funded with fees collected in unincorporated Contra Costa County) The 10 projects on the additional project list, per Table 4.2, Exhibit B in Nexus Study, are: ID Project Total Cost TVTD Fee Share B-1 I-580/1-680 Interchange westbound to southbound) $705.00 $700.00 B-2 5` eastbound lane on I-580 from Santa Rita Road to Vasco $131.30 $131.30 Road B-3 I-580/First Street Interchange Modification $30.30 $4.20 B-4 1-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification $50.50 $14.60 B-5 I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification $35.35 $7.77 B-6 Jack London Boulevard Extension $27.78 $3.54 13-7 ' El Charro Road Extension $18.50 $5.00 B-8 Camino Tassajara Widening(east Blackhawk Drive to $49.43 $44.92 Count line) 8-10 I-680 southbound HOV lane gap closure (Livorna Road to $55.00 $36.50 North Main Street) B-1 la I-680 Express Bus/HOV on and off rams $80.00 $47.30 B-I l b * S1�-3680 Transit Corridor Improvements $100.00 $100.00 ;; s a azn5t•bCi} ,•'" ,.' Z r s 3±"{ r t Raa s s k klzrs..{{. tj{j$ [ a t(e i real z rF rk6 s.. k sky.nft .'a .. ...(It.3�.� i�.{Eik. r PS• , M: .i$SI4Rt �� } en.#.axlltk..aS .: .y. , t.:: f 1 { "�� .{i..'.:. Total $1,283.16 $1,095.13 With 10% reduction to account for some degree of uncertainty $985.62 (per Nexus Stud *Transit/Pedestrian Type Improvements(not funded with fees collected in unincorporated Contra Costa County) SUBJECT: HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-27, increasing fees in the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit to fund projects in the updated Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Program,and related CEQA actions, South County area. (District III) [CDD-CP #08-45] Project No: 0676-6P4032 DATE: October 28, 2008 PAGE: 6 of 7 In the Nexus Study, there are 22 projects identified (11 existing projects and 11 additional projects). After the Nexus Study was completed,project B-9:Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Interchange Improvements was removed at the request of the Contra Costa County District 3 Supervisor. Therefore, 10 additional projects are included in the updated fee calculation, not the 11 contained in the Nexus Study. The TVTC has determined that the funds collected through the TVTD Fee will fund the improvements in the "A" list as the first priority and those in the `B" list as second priority. POTENTIAL FEES AND REVENUES The Nexus Study shows that the TVTC could legally establish fees whose revenues would total $1,336 million. However, based on action by the TVTC to reduce the maximum allowable fee by 65%, the proposed fees are set lower. The proposed updated fees will be phased in over the next three fiscal years and are shown in the tables below. Recommended Fees FY 09/10 Land Use Category TVTD Fee Rates Single-Family $ 2,036 /DU Multi-Family $ 1,295 /DU Commercial /Retail $ 1,365 /KSF Office $ 3,653 /KSF Industrial $ 2,469 /KSF Other $ 2,262/PHT Recommended Fees FY 10/11 Land Use Category TVTD Fee Rates Single-Family $ 3,053 /DU Multi-Family $ 2,104/DU Commercial/Retail $ 3,400 /KSF Office $ 5,191 /KSF Industrial $ 3,020 /KSF Other $3,393 /PHT SUBJECT: HEARING to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-27, increasing fees in the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit to fund projects in the updated Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Program,and related CEQA actions, South County area. (District IIl) [CDD-CP #08-451 Project No: 0676-6P4032 DATE: October 28, 2008 PAGE: 7 of 7 Recommended Fees Beginning FY 11/12 Land Use Category TVTD Fee Rates Single-Family $ 4,275 /DU Multi-Family $ 2,945 /DU Commercial /Retail $ 3,400 /KSF Office $ 7,267 /KSF Industrial $ 4,227 /KSF Other $ 4,750 /PHT The fees above reflect 35%of the maximum fee amount as stated in the Nexus Study,with Commercial/Retail set at 15% of the maximum amount. The above TVTD Fees are subject to annual adjustment based on the change in the Construction Cost Index. An additional administrative fee equal to 2%of the program revenue will be assessed by the County. In order to implement the new TVTD Fee schedule,it is necessary for the County and the other Member Agencies to adopt new ordinances or resolutions. Staff recommends that the Board adopt Ordinance No.2008-27 implementing the updated TVTD Fees. All of the Member Agencies will complete a similar implementation process. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Failure to adopt Ordinance No. 2008-27 to fund the updated TVTD Fee program will result in the loss of potential revenues and would be inconsistent with the intent of the JEPA, which established the TVTD Fee program. In addition,the developer contribution for regional or sub-regional improvement projects is necessary to comply with the concepts of the County's Growth Management Program which requires new growth to fund the additional infrastructure capacity required to serve that growth. Recording Requested.By: .. CONTRA COSTA Co Recorder Office CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STEPHEN L WEIR, Clerk-Recorder BOARD OF SUPERVISORS � DOC— 2@@5-0243421-00 Wednesday, NOY 05, 2008 09:21:17 651 Pine Street, Room 106 FRE $0.00; Martinez, CA 94553 Ttl Pd $0.06 Nbr-0004250009 lrc/R9/1-13 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra Costa County - - - 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553-1293 Document Title(s) yr dK�')CV, rte, -011 Ckt oo. o�� Pevisd lo 7-910(K ORDINANCE NO. 2008-27 (Uncodified) (Adoption of Revised Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ordains as follows: SECTION I. SUMMARY. This ordinance provides for the repeal of Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 98-35,as amended, the reestablishment of the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit and the adoption of revised transportation mitigation fees for road improvements within the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit. This ordinance is enacted as part of the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Program, a regional transportation mitigation fee program involving the counties of Contra Costa and Alameda and the municipalities of:Danville, San Ramon,Dublin,Pleasanton and Livermore. SECTION H. AUTHORITY. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to Government Code section 66484 and Division 913,Title 9, of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. SECTION III. NOTICE AND HEARING. This ordinance was adopted pursuant to the procedure set forth in Government Code sections 54986, 65091, 66017-18 and 66484 and Division 913,Title 9, of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code,and all required notices have been properly given and public hearings held. SECTION IV. REPEAL. Contra Costa County Ordinance No. 98-35 is hereby repealed, effective July 1,2009. SECTION V. FEE ADOPTION AND COLLECTION. A. The following phased fee schedules are hereby adopted for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit and shall apply to all development as shown in the tables below. The fee schedules state fee rates in 2008 dollars for each dwelling unit ("DU'), one thousand square feet("KSF")or peak hour trip ("PHT"), as applicable. The fees are subject to adjustment to account for increases or decreases in the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area("ENR-CCP'), as more particularly set forth below and in Section XI of this ordinance. The fees shall be levied and collected pursuant to the above authorities. 1. Fiscal Year 2009-2010 a. The following fees shall be effective from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010: Land Use Type Fee Amount Single Family Homes $2,036 per DU Multi-Family Homes $1,295 per DU Retail/Commercial $1,365 per KSF Page-1- Ordinance No. 2008-27 Office $3,653 per KSF Industrial $2,469 per KSF Other $2,262 per PHT b. On July 1, 2009,the amount of the fees set forth above shall be increased or decreased by the percentage change in the ENR-CCI for the 12-month period ending December 31, 2008. This adjustment shall be in addition to the annual adjustment pursuant to Section XI of this ordinance. 2. Fiscal Year 2010-2011 a. The following fees shall be effective from July 1, 2010,through June 30, 2011: Land Use Type Fee Amount Single Family Homes $3,053 per DU Multi-Family Homes $2,104 per.DU Retail/Commercial $3,400 per KSF Office $5,191 per KSF Industrial $3,020 per KSF Other $3,393 per PHT b. On July 1,2010, the amount of the fees set forth above shall be increased or decreased by the percentage changes in the ENr-CCI for the San Francisco Bay Area for(1)the 12-montb period ending December 31, 2008, and(2) the 12-month period ending with December 31, 2009, in accordance with the following formula: X(1+P1)(1+P2)=Y Where: X=Fee Rate Shown in Schedule P,=Percentage Change in ENR-CCI for Calendar Year 2008 P2=Percentage Change in ENR-CCI for Calendar Year 2009 Y=Adjusted Fee Rate The above adjustment shall be in addition to the annual fee adjustment pursuant to Section XI of this ordinance. 3. Fiscal Year 2011 and following a. The following fees shall be effective commencing July 1, 2011: Land Use Type Fee Amount Single Family Homes $4,275 per DU Multi-Family Homes $2,945 per DU Page-2- Ordinance No. 2008-27 Retail/Commercial $3,400 per KSF Office $7,267 per KSF Industrial $4,227 per KSF Other $4,750 per PHT b. On July 1, 2011,the amount of the fees set forth above shall be increased or decreased by the percentage changes in the ENR-CCI for(1)the 12- month period ending December 31,2008, (2)the 12-month period ending December 31,2009, and (3)the 12-month period ending December 31, 2010,in accordance with the following formula: X(1+P,) (l+P2) (1+P3)=Y Where: X=Fee Rate Shown in Schedule P,=Percentage Change in ENR-CCI for Calendar Year 2008 PZ=Percentage Change in ENR-CCI for Calendar Year 2009 P3=Percentage Change in ENR-CCI for Calendar Year 2010 Y=Adjusted Fee Rate The above adjustment shall be in addition to the annual adjustment pursuant to Section XI of this ordinance. B. Fees for Other uses shall be determined by the County according to information generated by traffic studies,if required by the County, or in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE")Manual. C. No development shall be exempt from the fee; provided, that any development which, as of the date of the notice published pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.2(b), (i) has perfected an exemption pursuant to the vesting tentative map law or(ii)has entered into a development agreement with the County which expressly excludes assessment of additional fees, shall not be subject to the fees required to be imposed hereby. D. A project that replaces an existing structure or development is subject to the fee only to the extent that it would generate more peak hour vehicle trips than the existing development. r E. The fees specified herein shall be made a condition of approval of all tentative and final subdivision maps. Except as provided above in subsection C, the fees shall be collected prior to the issuance of any building permit, as specified in Section 913-4.204 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. SECTION VI. FEE.AREA. The fees set forth in this ordinance shall apply to all property within the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto. Page-3- Ordinance No. 2008-27 SECTION VII. FEE REDUCTION AND CREDIT. A. A developer may request a reduction in fees through the County if it is determined that the project will generate a lower number of trips than data provided by the ITE Manual that was used as the basis for the Report. Any such fee reduction would be based on a traffic study which determines that the traffic impacts of the proposed development would generate fees that are less than the fees that are set forth in Section V.A. above. The methodology for conducting the study shall be developed and approved by the County. The County shall determine the appropriate fee reduction based upon the proportionate reduction in trips demonstrated in the traffic study. B. A developer may receive credit against fees for the dedication of land for right-of-way and/or construction of any portion of the projects to be funded with the fees collected pursuant to this ordinance, where such right-of-way or construction is beyond that which would.otherwise be required for approval of the proposed development. The calculation of the amount of credit against fees for such dedications or improvements shall be based on a determination by the County that such credits are, in fact, exclusive of the dedications, setbacks,improvements, and/or traffic mitigation measures which are required by local ordinance, standards, or other practice. In addition,the credit shall be calculated based upon the actual cost of construction of improvements or, in the case of land dedication,on an independent appraisal approved by the County. SECTION VIII. FEE WAIVERS. A. Waiver for Affordable Housing Units 1. Upon written request of the project applicant,the Public Works Director may waive the fees collected under this ordinance for dwelling units that the Public Works Director determines,in a written finding,fit into one of the following categories: (1)Rental units affordable to households earning less than 80% of the area median income; or(2)ownership units affordable to households earning less than 120% of the area median income. 2. As a condition of such waiver,the project applicant shall enter into a regulatory agreement with the County, guaranteeing the use, occupancy,affordability, and term of affordability of such dwelling units. Rental units for which a waiver is granted under this section shall be restricted to that use for a minimum of 55 years. Ownership units for which a waiver is granted under this section shall be restricted to that use for a minimum of 30 years. B. Waiver for.Inclusionary Housing Units. In lieu of the fee waiver for affordable housing units as set forth in Section VIIIA,development projects that are subject to Chapter 822-4 of the County Ordinance Code shall be'eligible for a waiver of the fees collected under this ordinance as follows: Page-4- Ordinance No. 2008-27 1. Fees shall be waived for each rental unit to be developed and rented as an inclusionary unit under the terns and conditions of Section 822-4.410(a) of the County Ordinance Code. 2. Fees shall be waived for each for-sale unit to be developed and sold as an inclusionary unit under the terms and conditions of Section 822-4.410(b) of the County Ordinance Code. 3. If a fee is paid in lieu of constructing some or all inclusionary units in a development project,pursuant to Section 822-4.404 of the County Ordinance Code,the fees collected under this ordinance shall be waived for the number of inclusionary units for which the in-lieu fee is paid. SECTION IX. PURPOSE AND USE OF FEES, FINDINGS. A. The purpose of the fees described in this ordinance is to generate funds to.finance improvements to certain bridges and major thoroughfares that serve the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit. The fees will be used to finance the projects identified in Exhibit E to the October 2008,Development Program Report ("Report") on file with the Clerk of the Board. As discussed in more detail in said Report,there is a reasonable relationship between the fees and the types of development projects that are subject to the fees in that the development projects will generate additional traffic in the Tri-Valley Area, comprising the San Ramon Valley, Amador Valley and Livermore Valley and including the Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit, thus creating a need to expand, extend or improve existing transportation facilities and a need to construct new transportation facilities to mitigate adverse traffic and infrastructure impacts that would otherwise result from such development projects. B. The fees will be used to pay for the planning, design, acquisition of right-of-way, administration of construction contracts and actual construction of the projects identified in Exhibit E to the Report. C. The nexus findings contained in the Report and in the Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study,as amended February 26, 2008, in conformance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, § 66000 et seq.), are incorporated herein by reference. D. The Board determines that the adoption of this ordinance is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. The Board further finds that the adoption of the automatic changes in the TVTD Fees in accordance with changes in the ENR-CCI is also statutorily exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(8), and Section 15273(a)(4), of the CEQA Guidelines because the amount of any increase is precisely determinable based on Page-5- Ordinance No. 2008-27 the published change of the ENR-CCI and relates solely to the increase of construction costs for the previously identified projects. SECTION X. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS A. Within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year,the Public Works Director or her designee shall make available to the public a report regarding the account or fund established for receipt of deposits of the fees collected by the County pursuant to this ordinance. The report shall be reviewed by the Board at a regularly scheduled meeting in accordance with Government Code Section 66006. The report shall contain the following information for the fiscal year: (1) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. (2) The amount of the fee. (3) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. (4) The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned. (5) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees. (6) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the Board determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement, and the public improvement remains incomplete. (7) A description of each interfund transfer or loan from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and,in the case of an interfund loan,the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan. (8) The amount of refunds made pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(e) and any allocations pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(f). B. For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fund established for receipt of deposits of the fees collected pursuant to this ordinance, and every five years thereafter, the Board shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the fund remaining unexpended,whether committed or uncommitted,pursuant to Government Code Section 66001: (1) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put. (2) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged. (3) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements identified in the Report. (4) Designate the approximate dates on which the funding referred to in paragraph(3) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund. SECTION M. REVIEW OF FEES. Project cost estimates shall be reviewed every year that this ordinance is in effect. On March l .of each year, the amount of the fees then in effect as set forth in Section VA shall be increased or decreased by the percentage change in the ENR- Page-6- Ordinance No. 2008-27 CCT for the San Francisco Bay Area for the 12-month period ending December 31 of the preceding calendar year. SECTION XII. JUDICIAL REVIEW. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside,void,or annul the fees established by this ordinance shall be commenced within one hundred twenty(120) days of the effective date of this ordinance. Any action to attack an increase adopted pursuant to Section XI shall be commenced within one hundred twenty(120)days of the effective date of the increase. SECTION XIII. SEVERABILITY. If any fee or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining fees or provisions, and the Board declares that it would have adopted each part of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part. SECTION XIV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 2009. Within 15 days of passage,this ordinance shall be published once,with the names of the Supervisors voting for and against it,in the Contra Costa Times,a newspaper of general circulation published in this Comity. Pursuant to Section 913-6.026 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code,the Clerk of the Board shall promptly file a certified copy of this ordinance with the County Recorder. PASSED and ADOPTED on aTog '-i' 2008,by the following vote: AYES: GIOIA,UILKEMA,PIEPHO, BONILLA&GLOVER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST:David J. Twa,Clerk of the Board `• of Supervisors and County Administrator �— Bard Chair By:`�� _Ctiur�avL Deputy Publication Date: (9 l het LW/ Attachment: Exhibit A (Map and Legal Description) H.Wina V W1Ord.No.2008-27.10.21.08.wpd Page-7- Ordinance No. 2008-27 Exhibit A Map of Contra Costa County showing MD Fee Area �a � o� oa�,oa TVTD FEE AREA OF BENEFIT RODEO+ C KET MA TINE PITTSBURG PINOLE IO H SAN EL SOBRANTE PABL -CONCORD a OAKLE RICHMON PLEASANT. y'� HILL BRENTWOO C RRITO� ' CLAYTON *WALNUT CREEK ORINDALAF T MORAGA I IP'''"911 �10� �IIIII MOM r,,Ada he vwototl W� itw. so f3tf of Sm ft w e.a the TVTD FEE AREA To of omw.a. LOCATION MAP Boundary Description TVTD Area of Benefit Real property in Southem Contra Costa County, California, bounded on the south by Alameda County, bounded on the north by the "South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit" adopted December 6, 1994, by Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors'Resolution 94/604,and bounded on the north and west by the 'Central County Area of Benefit' adopted June 1301995, by Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors' Resolution 95/273 described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the west line of Section 23, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian with the boundary common to Contra Costa and Alameda.Counties;thence from the Point of Beginning, along said County boundary in a general westerly direction 101,550 feet, more or less, to Rancho comer P.C. No. 31 on the boundary of Rancho Laguna de los Palos Colorados; thence along said Rancho boundary, north 19028'45" east 3,547.16 feet to Rancho Comer P.C. No. 32 and north 1013'26" east 929.81 feet to the boundary of the Record of Survey filed June 20, 1980, in Book 67 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 9;thence along the boundary of said Record of Survey as follows: 1) north 88052'39"east 513.17 feet, 2) north 0015'16"west 1,303.04 feet, 3) north 8804310"east 1,290.34 feet, and 4) north 0027'37"west 1,306.53 feet to the northwest comer of Section 28, Township 1 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence along the north lines of Sections 2B, 27 and 26 (T1S, R2W), easterly 15,840 feet,more or less,'to the west line of Section 25 (T1 S, R2W); thence along said west line, southerly 2,640 feet, more or less, to the west quarter comer of said Section 25;thence south 88643'05"east 1,063.84 feet to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 28-82 filed November 21, 1983, in Book 108 of Parcel Maps at page 11;thence along the north line of Subdivision MS 28-82, south 88°47'23"east 1,062.06 feet to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 53-81 filed March 28, 1985. in Book 115 of Parcel Maps at page 14;thence along the north line of Subdivision MS 53-81, south 88°4343" east 3,035.66 feet to the east line of said Section 25 (TIS, R2W); thence along said east line, northerly 2,640-feet, more or less, to the northeast comer of Section 25, said point lying on the southerly boundary of the parcel of land described as PARCEL FIVE in the deed to East Bay Regional Park District recorded April 4, 1974, in Book 7189 of Official Records at page 183;thence along said boundary, in a general northerly direction 2,325.7 feet to the east line of the Parcel of land described as PARCEL ONE in the deed to the United States of America recorded July 29, 1980, In Book 9930 of Official Records at page 913; thence along said east line, in a general northwesterly direction 192.27 feet to an angle point on the boundary of said East Bay Regional Park District PARCEL FIVE (71B9 O.R. 183); thence along said boundary, In a general northwesterly direction 1207.59 feet to the northeast comer thereof, said point being the southeast comer of the parcel of land described as'PARCEL TWO in said deed to the East Bay Regional Park District (7189 O.R. 183); thence along the northeast line of PARCEL TWO (7189 O.R. 183), said line also being the boundary of Rancho San Ramon, northwesterly 4,840 feet, more or less,to the most easterly corner of Subdivision MS 150-75 fried June 14, 1976, in Book 45 of Parcel Maps at page 41:.thence along the boundary of said Subdivision MS 150-75 as follows: 1) south 63°16' west 193.73 feet, 2)south 76°18'50"west 481.39 feet, 3) north 84°1T west 2,622.91 feet, and 4) north 003940"west 1,233.72 feet to the northwest comer of said Subdivision MS 150-75,said point lying on the south line of Subdivision 6419 filed July 28, 1988, in Book 323 of Maps at page 39; thence along said south line, north'64°4744" west 1,353.46 feet to the southwest comer of said 1 Subdivision 6419, said point lying on the centerline of Section 14,Township 1 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence along said centerline of Section 14 and the centerline of Section 11 (T1 S, R2W), northerly 6,663.66 feet to the southwest comer of the parcel of land described in the deed to David L. Gates,et ux, recorded April 9, 1981, In Book 10275 of Official Records at page 438; thence along the south line of said Gates parcel (10275 O.R. 438)easterly 300.feet to the most southeast comer thereof, said point lying on the boundary of Subdivision MS 58-75 recorded October 26, 1978, in Book 71 of Parcel Maps at page 23; thence along the boundary of said Subdivision MS 58-75 (71 PM 23)as follows: 1)north 87°0511"east 274.17 feet, 2) in a general northerly direction 3,354.5 feet to the northeast comer thereof, 3)north 89"12'12" west 176.01 feet, and 4) south 0°36' west 41.92 feet to the southeast comer of Subdivision MS 133-72 filed September 7, 1972, in Book 24 of Parcel Maps at page 9;thence along the south line of Subdivision MS 133-72, south 89°12'36"west 259.78 feet to the Centeriine.of Castle HILI Ranch Road (a private road); thence along said centerline in a general northerly direction, 907 feet; more or less to the northeast corner of Lot "B" as shown on the Record of Survey filed May 13, 1984, In Book 74 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 12, said point being the most southern comer of the . said "South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit"(Res. 941604);thence along the boundaryof said "South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit;" in a general northerly and easterly direction, 6,275 feet, more or less, to the most eastern comer thereof, said point being the intersection of the centerline of Crest Avenue with the extended west right of way line of South Main.Street;thence along said extension and west right of way line in a general southerly direction 565 feet, more or less, to the southeast comer of Subdivision MS 114-75 filed October 20, 1976 in Book 49 of Parcel Maps at page 19; thence along the arc of a non-tangent curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 1,096 feet on the northwest line of the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way, northeasterly 52 feet, more or less, to the most western comer of Assessor Parcel Number (hereinafter referred to as APN) 183- 093-031 described as PARCEL 'THIRTY-ONE in the deed to Contra Costa County recorded December 9, 1985 in Book 12652 of Official Records at page 570; thence non-tangent along the southwest line thereof, crossing Engineer's Station 603+65, southeasterly 110 feet, more or less, W the southeast line of said County parcel, being a non-tangent curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 1,196 feet and being concentric with said northwest line; thence along the arc of said curve, northeasterly 52 feet, more or less, to the southwest line of APN 183-093-023 described in the deed to East Bay Municipal Utility District (hereinafter referred to as EBMUD) recorded January 5, 1968 in Book 5530 of Official Records at page 93; thence along said southwest line, south 22053'01" east 33.76 feet,thence crossing Rudgear Road, southeasterly 245 feet, more or less, to the northwest comer of APN 187.040-007 described as PARCEL 11 in the deed to Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District recorded December 20, 1967 in Book 5520 of Official Records at page 451;thence along the boundary of PARCEL 11, in a general southeasterly direction 1,036.02 feet and north 64°16'18"east 239.65 feet,to the most eastern comer thereof on the west right of way line of Interstate Freeway 680; thence along said west line In a general southeasterly direction 836 feet, more or less,to the boundary of APN 187- 050-011 and012 described as Parcel 1 in the deed to Edward Johannessen and Juliet Johannessen 1987 Revocable Living Trust recorded March 22, 1988 in Book 14228 of Official Records at page 211; thence along said boundary as follows: 1) south 63 03T38"west 44.33 feet, 2) south 23°15'36" east 359.22 feet, 3) north 64003'39"east 14.72 feet,4)south 23°1536" east 144.57 feet, 5) south 45"2124w west 36.15 feet, 6) south 55'515"24"west 108.21 feet, 7) south 32°31'24"west 152.34 feet, 8) south 12004'24"west 20.34 feet, 9) south 33°09'41"east 465.15 feet, 10) north 35°52'50" east 129.8 feet, 11) south 29021132" east 64.96 feet, and 12) south 69°09'52"east 54.67 feet, to the most southeastern comer thereof on the west right of way line of Interstate Freeway 680; thence along said west line in a general southeasterly direction 1,209.59 feet; thence crossing said freeway, north 53°47'20"east 290 feet, more or less,to the east right 2 of way line thereof,thence along said east line In a general southeasterly dimction.2,259.08 feet to the west line of Subdivision 6469 recorded January 8, 1982 in Book 286 of Maps at page 41; thence along said west line M a general northerly direction 828.77 feet to the south fine of APN 187-160-013 described as Parcel Three In the deed to the City of Walnut Creek recorded July 5, . 1984 in Book 11867 of Official Records at page 965; thence along sold south line and the south fine_.of Subdivision 4810 fi{ed September 23, 1976 in Book 189 of Maps at page 48, south 89°43'18"east 944.73 feet,to the southwest comer of Subdivision 3037 recorded June 25,.1964 In Book 99 of Maps at page 30;thence along lot lines of Subdivision 3037,south 89°43'18"east 933.43 feet, south 6019'31"east 712.51 feet and along the north right of way line:of Liverna Road, north 72°23'20"east 145.74 feet;thence crossing Tenter Way,north 72°2320"east 100 feet more or less,to the south fine of Lot 131 (99 M 30);thence continuing along lot lines of Subdivision 3037 as follows: 1)along the north right of way line of Uvomg Road,north 72023120'east 272.09 feet, 2) north 1 113823" east 275.72 feet, 3) south 88"23'37 east 149.23 feet 4) south 1'36"23' west 223.71 feet,and 5)along the north right of way tine of Uvoma Road In a general easterly direction 79.27 feet, to the east boundary of Subdivision 3037; thence along said boundary in a general northerly direction 1,532.28 feet to the northeast comer thereof,also being the southeast comer of Subdivision 3827 recorded June 11, 1969 in Book 126 of Maps at page 38; thence along the east line of Subdivision 3827, north 1.31'55"east 9425 feet,to the southwest comer of Subdivision 5366 recorded March 25, 1980 In Book 236 of Maps at page 7; thence along the boundary of Subdivision.5366 in a general easterly direction 400.83 feet to the southeast comer thereof on the boundary of Subdivision 5931 recorded June 29, 1983 in Book 271 of Maps at page 21;thence along the boundary of Subdivision 5931, In a general southeasterly direction 105.63 feet along Livoma Heights Road right of way line and south 55"22'55"east 537 feet,to the southeast comer of Subdivision 5931 on the west line of Subdivision 4402 recorded December 27, 1974 in Book 175 of Maps at page 25;thence along said west line, south 1 032'10"west 1063.35 feet to the northwest comer of Subdivision 3973 recorded August 18, 1972 in Book 149 of Maps at page 20; thence along the west itrib of Subdivision 3973 and Its southern prolongation, south 1°32'10" west 967.1 feet,to the centerline of Livonia Road;thence along said centerline in a general easterly direction 890.41 feet to the southern prolongation of the east line of Subdivision 3973; thence along said prolongation and east line, north 1 04425"east 1*057.06 feet,to the southeast comer of Subdivision 4402 (175 M 25); thence continuing north 1 84425"east 1,527.78 feet to the northeast comer of Subdivision 4402 on the boundary of Subdivision 4924 recorded May 18, 1977 in Book. 196 of Maps at page 28;thence along said boundary in a general southeasterly direction 2,879.25 feet to the southeast comer thereof on the boundary of Subdivision 6743 fled June 9, 1987 in Book 313 of Maps at page 28; thence along said boundary, north 21.53'15' west 3,423.26 feet, north 73616'01'east 41566.44 feet, End south 13661'48'east 5,687.22 feel,to the most southern comer thereof on the south Ina of Rancho San Miguel and the Record of Survey filed August 27, 1970 in Book 53 of Licensed Surveyor:'Maps at page 13;thence along said south line, south 76°53'13' east 1,445.41 feet, to the most southern comer of said Record of Surrey (53 LSM 13) on the boundary of that 787.58 acre parcel shown on the Record of Survey filed June 22. 1960, In Book 18 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 39;thence along the boundary of said parcel (18 LSM 39). south 600840'east 2,389.28 feet and north 87°52'06'east 9,68120 feet to the southeast comer thereof on the northwest line of Lot D.Rancho San Miguel Robert Allen Tract;thence along said northwest line, northeasterly 3.100 feet, more or'less, to the centerline of Mount Diablo Scenic Boulevard (North Gate Road);thence along said centerline in a general easterly direction 12,400 fea more or less,to the centerline Intersection of Summit Road; thence along the centerline of Mount Diablo Scenic Boulevard (South Gate Road)in a general southerly direction 6,700 feet, more or less,to the south line of Section 12 Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence along said south lime, easterly 4,400 feet,to the northwest comer of Section 18, Township 3 I South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian;thence along the west line of said Section 18 (Ti S, R1 E) southerly 5,280 feet, more or less, to the southwest comer thereof; thence along the south line of Sections 18, 17 and 16,Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, easterly 15,840 feet, more or less,to the northwest roomer of Section 22,Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian,thence along the west line of said Section 22 (T1 S, R1 E), southerly 5,280 feet, more or less,to the southwest comer thereof; thence along the south line of Sections 22 and 23 (T1 S. R1 E), easterly 10,560 feet, more or less,to the northeast comer of Section 26 (T1 S, R1E); thence, along the east line of Sections 26 and 35 (T1 S, R1 E), southerly 10,560 feet, more or less to the northeast comer of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence along the east line of Sections 2 and 11 (T2S, R1 E),southerly 10,560 feet, more or less, to the northeast comer of Section 14,Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence along the north line of said Section 14, (T2S, R1 E),westerly 2,640 feet, more or less,to the northeast comer of Parcel"D'of Subdivision MS 80-85 filed May 14, 1987, In Book 127 of Parcel Maps at page 32; thence along the east line of said Parcel "D" and Its southerly prolongation, southerly 6,250 feet, more or less, to a point on the said boundary common to Contra Costa and Alameda Counties; thence along said County boundary in a general westerly direction 2,800 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning. JH:JIg g:%dericaNexhibits\NTDaob.exh W19/96 4 Exhibit A ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REPORT FOR THE 2008 UPDATE OF THE TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE PROVIDING FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TRI-VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AREA PREPARED PURSUANT TO SECTION 913 COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE Prepared by: Contra Costa County Public Works Department and Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division October 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2 AREA OF BENEFIT LOCATION .......................................................................................... 3 NEXUS FINDINGS (GOV. CODE, §66001) ........................................................................ 4-9 GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP ....................................................................................... 9 IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 10 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WITHIN THE TRI-VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AREA ............... 10 ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................... 10 BASIS FOR FEE APPORTIONMENT ................................................................................. 11 CALCULATION OF FEES ................................................................................................... 11 PROGRAM FINANCE CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... 13 RECOMMENDED FEES .......................................................................................... 13 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES ................................................................................. 15 REVIEW OF FEES ................................................................................................... 15 COLLECTIONOF FEES ........................................................................................... 15 INTEREST ON FEES ................................................................................................ 16 IN LIEU DEDICATION ............................................................................................. 16 LIST OF TABLES PAGE TABLE 1 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN THE TRI-VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AREA (2007 - 2030 GROWTH) ........................................................................... 10 TABLE 2 MAXIMUM COST PER PEAK HOUR TRIP PER NEXUS STUDY (INCLUDES PROJECT B-9)........................................................................... 12 TABLE 3 TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE CALCULATION SUMMARY (MAXIMUM ALLOWED PER NEXUS STUDY) .............................. 12 TABLE 4 MAXIMUM COST PER PEAK HOUR TRIP (DOES NOT INCLUDE PROJECT B-9) ......................................................... 13 TABLE 5 TRI-VALLLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE CALCULATION SUMMARY (MAXIMUM ALLOWED NOT INCLUDING PROJECT B-9)............ 13 TABLE 6 RECOMMENDED FEES FY 09/10 .................................................................. 14 TABLE 7 RECOMMENDED FEES FY 10/11 .................................................................. 14 TABLE 8 RECOMMENDED FEES BEGINNING FY 11/12 ............................................. 15 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A TRI-VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY .......................................... 17 EXHIBIT B TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE AREA WITHIN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ............................................................... 18 EXHIBIT C TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE AREA WITHIN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, CITIES ... 19 EXHIBIT D TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. 20-23 EXHIBIT E PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY24-25 ............................................................ EXHIBIT F TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL NEXUS STUDY FEE UPDATE, ADOPTED JANUARY 19, 2008 AND AMENDED FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ...... 26-56 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REPORT FOR THE 2008 UPDATE OF THE TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE PURSUANT TO THE BRIDGE CROSSING AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARES FEE AREA POLICY INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The Tri-Valley Transportation Development ("TVTD") Fee is a uniform fee on development to fund transportation improvements in the Tri-Valley area, both in Contra Costa County and in Alameda County. The Tri-Valley area consists of the San Ramon Valley, Livermore Valley and Amador Valley. Within this area are portions of southern Contra Costa County and northern Alameda County and the Cities of San Ramon, Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin and the Town of Danville, which collectively comprise the Tri-Valley Development Area. The approximate boundary of the Tri-Valley Development Area is shown in Exhibit A. This Development Program Report ("DPR'� is required by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors' Policy on Bridge Crossing and Major Thoroughfare Fees (adopted July 17, 1979), which implements Division 913 of the County Ordinance Code and Section 66484 of the State Subdivision Map Act. The April 22, 1998, "Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Pertaining To Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee for Traffic Mitigation" ("]EPA") is an agreement among the County of Contra Costa ("County"), the Town of Danville, the City of San Ramon, the City of Pleasanton, the City of Dublin, the City of Livermore and the County of Alameda. The JEPA established a framework for the enactment of the TVTD Fee by the participant jurisdictions within the Tri-Valley Development Area. This DPR details the basis for collection of the TVTD Fee in the County. The County's ordinance will apply only to new development within the Tri-Valley Development Area and within the unincorporated areas of the County, an area known as the TVTD Fee Area of Benefit ("TVTD Fee AOB"). The TVTD Fee AOB is generally shown in Exhibits B and C and specifically described in Exhibit D. Similar ordinances will be or already have been adopted by the other parties to the JEPA. One of the objectives of the County General Plan and of the ]EPA is to relate new development directly to the provision of facilities necessary to serve that new development. Accordingly, development cannot be allowed to occur unless a mechanism is in place to provide the funding for the infrastructure necessary to serve that development. The TVTD Fee provides funds to construct regional road improvements to serve new residential, office, commercial/retail, and industrial developments. Requiring that all new development pay a regional road improvement fee will ensure their participation in the cost of improving the regional road system. 1 Each new development or expansion of an existing development will generate new additional traffic. Where the existing road system is inadequate to meet future needs based on new development, improvements are required to meet the new demand. The purpose of a development program is to determine improvements ultimately required to serve estimated future development throughout the Tri-Valley Development Area and to require developers to pay a fee to help fund these improvements. Because the TVTD Fee is based on the relative impact on the road system and the costs of the necessary improvements to mitigate this impact, the fee amount is roughly proportional to the development impact. This DPR discusses the basis of that fee amount. BACKGROUND In 1991, the County entered into a Joint Powers Agreement ("JPA") with the County of Alameda, the Town of Danville, and the cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon. This JPA created the Tri-Valley Transportation Council ("TVTC"). The purpose of the JPA was to provide for a transportation plan and provide a forum for the review and coordination of planning and implementation of transportation facilities in the Tri- Valley Development Area. The TVTC adopted the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan ("Action Plan") in April 1995. The Action Plan contained 11 specific regional transportation improvements to be given high priority for funding and implementation. A Tri-Valley Regional Transportation Improvement Fee Program Nexus Analysis was then prepared to calculate and provide the legal justification for the TVTD Fee, which would be used to fund the 11 projects. In 1997, based on this analysis, the TVTC recommended the adoption of a uniform development fee. In 1998, the JPA members entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to establish a framework for the enactment by each member jurisdiction of the TVTD Fee and to establish mechanisms for collecting, managing and disbursing the TVTD Fee. Simultaneously with its approval of the ]EPA in August 1998 the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ("Board") adopted a Development Program Report pertaining to the TVTD Fee and adopted Ordinance No. 98-35 and Urgency Ordinance No. 98-36, the latter of which allowed for immediate collection of the TVTD Fee and was effective for 30 days. In September 1998 the Board passed Urgency Ordinance No. 98-41, which extended the initial urgency ordinance for 30 days. On October 10, 1998, Ordinance No. 98-35 became effective to provide a mechanism for collection of the TVTD Fee on developments in the TVTD Fee AOB. In April 2003 the TVTC approved a fee reduction for multi-family residential developments and an increase for office and industrial land use categories to help eliminate project funding shortfalls. In September 2003 the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2003-21, amending Ordinance No. 98-35 to revise the TVTD Fee schedule to be consistent with the approvals by the TVTC. 2 Since the Action Plan's adoption in 1995 there have been substantial changes in the Tri- Valley Development Area's traffic circulation needs and development potential. In addition, new funding sources have been established,. three of the 11 improvement projects have been completed, the Action Plan was updated in 2000, and new improvements have been identified. These changes have prompted a revision to the MD Fee program. State law allows the jurisdictions participating in the NTD Fee program to establish a fee based on all new development potential within the Tri-Valley Development Area which could finance all or a portion of the proposed improvement projects. The Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code, § 66000 et seq.) requires that certain nexus findings be made by public agencies before such a fee may be established, increased, or imposed on development projects (Gov. Code, § 66001). The "Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Fee Update" ("Nexus Study") dated January 18, 2008, and amended February 26, 2008, prepared for the TVTC by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with Dowling Associates, Inc., which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, provides the technical basis for establishing the required nexus between the anticipated future development in the Tri-Valley Development Area and the proposed transportation facilities. This DPR addresses the bridges/major thoroughfare projects described in the Nexus Study. A separate analysis of those projects is necessary pursuant to Government Code Section 66484, Division 913 of the County. Ordinance Code and the above-referenced Board Policy. Government Code section 66484 authorizes local agencies to adopt ordinances to require, as a condition of approval of a final map or as a condition of issuing a building permit, the payment of fees to defray the cost of constructing bridges and major thoroughfares. Note that 19 of the 22 projects identified in the Nexus Study are bridges/major thoroughfare type improvements, and three of the 22 projects are transit/pedestrian type improvements (West Dublin/Pleasanton BART, Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit, and I-680 HOV Facilities/Express Bus). Fees collected in unincorporated Contra Costa County will only be used to fund the bridge/major thoroughfare type improvements. AREA OF BENEFIT LOCATION Exhibit A shows the general boundary of the Tri-Valley Development Area. Exhibits B and C show the general boundary of the NTD Fee AOB, which encompasses the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County that are located within the Tri-Valley Development Area. A more detailed legal description of the NTD Fee Area within Contra Costa County is given in Exhibit D. The NTD Fee imposed by the County will be collected only within the NTD Fee AOB. 3 NEXUS FINDINGS (GOV. CODE, § 66001 1) PURPOSE OF THE FEE The purpose of this TVTD Fee is to generate monies through the adoption of a traffic mitigation fee to ensure the roadway network will serve current and future transportation needs. Adoption of the TVTD Fee will help fund the road improvements to keep pace with traffic generated by new developments. 2) USE OF THE FEES The fees will be used to pay for the bridges/major thoroughfares type projects identified in Exhibit E and described in the Nexus Study. The fees will also be used to pay for the expenses incurred in the development and administration of this fee. Amenities that do not have a direct effect on capacity and safety, such as general lighting, extensive longitudinal storm drain systems, and sidewalks are not included in the TVTD Fee program. These improvements are considered frontage improvements by the Board of Supervisors, and as such are the responsibilities of the owners of the adjacent properties. As these properties develop, the frontage improvements may be provided by developers through conditions of approval, or by other future means such as additional fees or assessment districts. All of the roadways that will be improved by the fee program are designated by the TVTC as "routes of regional significance." The TVTC designated these routes based on input from its Technical Advisory Committee. The general guidelines issued by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority state that routes of regional significance are those that carry significant amounts of through traffic, connect two or more jurisdictions, serve major transportation hubs, or cross county lines. All of the designated routes in the TVTD Fee program meet at least one of these criteria and most of them meet all the criteria. 3) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE USE OF FEES AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED The MD Fee will be used to provide for improvements required by growth projection to maintain the current traffic level of service. The improvements are necessary for the improvement of the capacity and safety of the road network serving the Tri-Valley Development Area as determined by future growth allowed for in the General Plan for each jurisdiction. The County's road network is outlined in the Circulation Element of the County General Plan. All new development in the Tri-Valley Development Area will contribute additional traffic to the road network within that area, generally and specifically to the 4 locations of the improvements. The growth in the Tri-Valley Development Area will comprise different types of land uses, which may include single-family and multi- family residential, office, industrial, and commercial/retail uses. The amount of new traffic generated will be different for each type of development. Each type of development project will have a different level of impact on the locations of the improvements and the fee must be proportional to that impact. The traffic generated by each type of development is determined based on a trip generation factor that has been designated for each of the various land uses outlined in the Nexus Study and this DPR. These factors for each type of land use, such as single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial/retail, etc., were determined using the Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE") Trip Generation, 7th Edition Manual ("Trip Generation Manual") and results of a study using Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2003 to determine the residential and employment growth in the Tri-Valley Development Area between 2005 and 2030. The trip generation factors (i.e., X number of peak-hour vehicle trips per 1,000 feet of commercial space) are then applied to the units or square footage of growth expected for each land use type to forecast the number of vehicle trips that will be generated by each land use type in the horizon year, which in this case is 2030. The cost of the planned transportation improvements is then apportioned among each land use type. This methodology allocates fees to the types of land use proportional to the amount of new traffic generated in the Tri- Valley Development Area by that land use. As a result, the proposed fees to be collected for the specified improvements are based on these factors and, therefore, are directly related to the traffic impacts of each particular land use category. This methodology ensures that the fees collected from new development in each of the land use categories are used to fund the improvements in proportion to the amount of new traffic that is generated based on the type of land use. The analysis in the Nexus Study was performed by consultants to TVTC using the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Countywide Travel Demand Forecasting Model. This is a commonly used type of forecasting model that uses data on existing land uses and future growth forecasts, together with data on anticipated transportation improvements, to forecast how much traffic will occur on each roadway, where traffic demand will exceed the capacity of the roadways, and how much ridership there will be on public transit routes. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority has operated this type of model and periodically updated it since the Authority's inception. State and federal regulations require the use of this type of forecasting model for a number of transportation planning functions. In turn, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority requires jurisdictions to use their model for the nexus studies for regional impact fee programs under the Measure C Growth Management Program which they administer. 5 The land use forecasts used in the model are the Association of Bay Area Governments growth forecasts, also required by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Growth Management Program. 4) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NEED FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED As discussed in Section (3) above, a trip generation rate has been designated for each type of development outlined in the Nexus Study and this DPR. These factors are industry standards obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. As a result, the proposed fees are directly related to traffic generated by each particular land use category. The TVTD Fee is based on distributing the cost of the improvements to new development in proportion to the number of peak hour trips generated by the particular type of new development. All new development that generates new traffic will create an impact to the road network. Additional traffic from the new development projects on which the fee will be imposed will contribute to the need for the improvements. . The different categories of land use generate different amounts of peak hour trips and therefore have different levels of impact on these roads and create a different level of need for the road improvement projects. The fees are calculated to ensure that each type of land use category pays a fee that is in proportion to the new traffic that is generated by a specific type of development. It is recognized that existing traffic and growth outside the Tri-Valley Development Area also contribute to the need for the road improvement projects. New development in the Tri-Valley Development Area will only be assessed for a portion of costs relative to their impact. This share was determined based on the rate of growth in the Tri-Valley Development Area. Therefore, the fees generated by this program will only fund the portion of the road improvement projects attributed to new growth within the Tri-Valley Development Area. The analysis is performed on a regional level, using the entire Tri-Valley Development Area as the study area. Traffic analysis was not performed on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis, only on a region-wide basis, as this permits the establishment of a uniform regional fee. These uniform regional fees have been in place in Contra Costa County since the mid-1990s. The traffic performance indicator used in the Nexus Study is vehicle hours of delay, or VHD. This is a commonly used statistic to perform this type of traffic analysis. It reflects the total amount of delay experienced by all motorists, with delay being the peak-hour travel time minus the travel time during uncongested free-flow conditions. The difference in travel time (delay) is then multiplied by the number of vehicles, resulting in vehicle hours of delay (VHD). 6 Whereas traffic studies of a specific development proposal often use the indicator known as level of service, VHD is more appropriate for a regional 'traffic study. Level of service is a localized measure that can only be applied to a specific intersection or to one specific segment of a roadway between two specific intersections. VHD can apply to an entire route or to the entire transportation network, making it a more useful indicator for large-scale traffic studies such as the TVTC Nexus Study. i The improvements described in the Nexus Study will provide benefits to the unincorporated County areas within the Tri-Valley area. For example, the peak hour travel time along I-680 between Stone Valley Road and Crow Canyon Road will decrease due largely to the planned I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Project - Segment 2, project A-3, which adds an additional auxiliary lane in each direction between the Sycamore Valley Road interchange to the Crow Canyon Road interchange on I-680. This project is scheduled to begin construction in 2011 with completion scheduled for 2013. Other I-680 improvements downstream from this segment will also help to reduce the travel time in this segment, including the planned expansion of the I-580 Westbound to I-680 Southbound Interchange Project, project B-1. Currently the I- 580 / I-680 interchange experiences lengthy backups during peak commute periods, and the slow merge from I-580 westbound onto I-680 southbound also backs up mainline traffic that is already on I-680 upstream of the interchange. In the morning peak hour, southbound travel time for the Stone Valley Road to Crow Canyon Road segment of I-680 will decrease from 30 minutes to 29 minutes. The evening peak hour travel time for northbound traffic will decrease from 36 minutes to 34 minutes. These figures compare year 2030 forecasts with the proposed improvement projects to year 2030 forecasts without the proposed improvement projects. The improvements included in the TVTD Fee program are also projected to improve evening peak hour travel through the intersection of Danville Boulevard and Livorna Road. Year 2030 forecasts indicate a reduction of the volume-to-capacity ratio for this intersection from 0.96 to 0.82. The volume-to-capacity ratio is an indicator of the demand flow rates to the capacity for a given type of transportation facility. Since the TVTD Fee program does not include an improvement project at this particular intersection, the forecasted improvement in traffic flow is attributable to the effects of other projects elsewhere on the road network, including those in the TVTD Fee program. Congestion on Vasco Road in the unincorporated County area due to accident- related backups will be reduced by the Vasco Road Safety Improvement Project, project A-10. Among improvements included with this project, the installation of a median divider on an accident-prone segment of Vasco Road in Alameda County will eliminate cross-median collisions. This will reduce the resulting lengthy traffic backups in the wake of these collisions. This benefit will apply to Vasco Road motorists both in the Alameda County and Contra Costa County portions of the road since it is a continuous, uninterrupted road through both counties and the backups from serious accidents can extend across the County line. Similarly, accident-related congestion on Crow Canyon Road in unincorporated County will be reduced due to the Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvement Project, project A-9, for similar reasons as the Vasco Road situation noted above. Backups can extend across the County line and therefore, although these projects are located within Alameda County, they will provide benefits to County motorists. Traffic analysis has shown that unincorporated County households generate vehicle trips that use I-680, I-580, Vasco Road, and Crow Canyon Road. Traffic conditions on all of these regional routes will benefit from the transportation improvements analyzed in the Nexus Study. The concept of an area of benefit is the equitable distribution of road improvement costs to new development from which future traffic impacts will arise. Since traffic impacts from development are directly related to the total number of new vehicles on the road network, we are able to relate road development fees for the identified needed road improvements to the number of vehicle trips associated with a particular category of development. The categories for which a fee will be assessed in the Tri-Valley Development Area are single-family and multi-family residential, office, industrial, commercial/retail, and 'other." The total estimated Tri-Valley Development Area share of the project costs is divided by the number of peak hour trips generated by each category. 5) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE AND THE COST OF THE ROAD PROJECTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED The TVTD Fee applies to unincorporated areas of the County within the Tri-Valley Development Area. The traffic impacts to the locations of the improvements from new development in the entire Tri-Valley Development Area, including the incorporated areas, were evaluated in the Nexus Study. Forecasts of future traffic volumes were made to provide the data needed to establish the reasonable relationship between new development's traffic impacts and the need for and costs of the improvements. Using the traffic volume forecasts and the estimated cost of the improvements, the portion of the estimated project costs that can reasonably be connected with the need generated by the projected new development was calculated. As discussed in Part (4), the costs of the improvements to correct s existing deficiencies and the cost of the improvements associated with the impacts from growth in the greater regional traffic will not be funded by the TVTD Fee. Therefore, new development in the Tri-Valley Development Area will only be assessed fees for the portion of the cost of the improvements relative to the traffic impact attributable to the new development. The analysis shows that the proposed fee program would reduce VHD in the year 2030 by about 22 percent compared to the amount of VHD that would occur without the fee program improvements. This means the fee program will "solve" only a small portion of the Tri-Valley Development Area congestion problem, and it will not be fully implemented until many years in the future. This satisfies the legal requirement that new development cannot be charged impact fees to resolve congestion problems that already exist; they can only be charged fees to address congestion that will result from new development. GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP The basis for the TVTD Fee is consistent with the features of the County General Plan and.its amendments and subscribes to the policies of the General Plan elements. The General Plan policies include, but are not limited to, improving the County roadway network to meet existing and future traffic demands. Establishing and charging new development the TVTD Fee will assist in funding the necessary improvements required for future growth that are generally shown in the General Plan. The fees will be used to help finance improvements to state highways including freeways, not just local surface streets. The Contra Costa County General Plan includes freeways in its Transportation and Circulation Element as part of the General Plan Roadway and Transit Network. The Transportation and Circulation Element also states the County shall work with Caltrans to establish commuter lanes on new and expanded freeways and state highways and that the County shall work with cities to establish regional funding mechanisms to fund improvements to the Roadway and Transit Network in the General Plan. The funding mechanisms "may include sales taxes, gas taxes, or fees on new development" (Contra Costa County General Plan page 5-16 item 5-f). The County General Plan and its various elements are available for review at the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, during regular office hours. 9 IMPROVEMENTS The Nexus Study identifies the projects that will help provide the capacity and safety improvements needed to serve the estimated potential development and future traffic volumes on the arterial roads within the Tri-Valley Development Area. The Nexus Study identifies a total of 22 projects (11 projects included in the original program adopted in 1995 and 11 additional projects included in this update). After the Nexus Study was completed, the Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Interchange Improvements, project B-9, was removed at the request of the Contra Costa County District 3 Supervisor. Therefore, in this document 10 additional project descriptions and project costs are included, not the 11 contained in the Nexus Study. The improvements proposed for the Tri-Valley Development Area will be reviewed periodically to assess the impacts of changing travel patterns, the rate of development, the accuracy of the estimated project costs, and to evaluate project priority and the need to increase fees should project costs increase or exceed the rate of inflation. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WITHIN THE TRI-VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AREA The projected growth in households, employment, and peak hour trips within the Tri- Valley Development Area is discussed and shown in the Nexus Study. A summary of the development potential is shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 Development Potential in the Tri-Valley Development Area (2007 — 2030 Growth) Land Use Category Units or Floor Area Single-Family Residential 38,682 dwelling units Multi-Family Residential 19,083 dwelling units Commercial / Retail 6,060,500 s uare feet Office 13,745,700 square feet Industrial 12,808,800 sq are feet Other 9,229,800 square feet ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS The estimated cost of the improvements planned in the Tri-Valley Development Area and the corresponding recommended TVTD Fee contributions are shown in Exhibit E. The TVTD Fee will only finance the proportional share of the improvements 10 necessitated by the impact on the road system from new development, as stated above. The County will assess an administrative fee equal to 2% of the program revenue. This additional fee will be used to cover staff time for fee collection, accounting and technical support to the community groups and traffic advisory committees. BASIS FOR FEE APPORTIONMENT The basis for the fee apportionment is set forth in detail in the Nexus Study and this DPR. To summarize, the land use categories for which a fee will be assessed in.the Tri-Valley Development Area, including the TVTC Fee AOB, are single-family and multi-family residential, office, industrial, commercial/retail, and "other." The total TVTD Fee share of the cost of improvements is divided by the total number of peak hour trips generated by all of these land use categories to determine a cost per peak hour trip. The costs are then distributed based on a peak hour trip rate. For the residential categories, the cost is distributed among all dwelling units. In the non-residential categories, the cost is distributed per square foot of gross floor area.. For the `other" category, which includes land uses that do not fall within the defined land use categories, the fee is based on the number of peak hour trips generated by the particular type of development. . A traffic study prepared by a licensed engineer, reviewed, and approved by the Public Works Department, or an analysis completed in accordance with the latest revision of the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, may be required to analyze the project's impact during the peak traffic hours. The project would then be charged the peak hour trip rate multiplied by the number of peak hour trips identified by one of the methods above. CALCULATION OF FEES The updated MD Fee program includes 21 projects (11 projects included in the original program adopted in 1995 and 10 additional projects included in this update). 18 of the 21 projects are bridges/major thoroughfare type improvements and 3 of the 21 projects are transit/pedestrian type improvements. Fees collected in unincorporated Contra Costa County will only be used to fund the bridge/major thoroughfare type improvements. The Nexus Study identifies a total of 22 projects. ' After the Nexus Study was completed, the Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Interchange Improvements, project B-9, was removed at the request of the Contra Costa County District 3 u Supervisor. Therefore, in this document 10 additional project descriptions and project costs are included, not the 11 contained in the Nexus Study. The fee calculation is explained in detail in the Nexus Study. The values reflected in Tables 2 and 3 below reflect the calculations in the Nexus Study and include funding project B-9 from the project list. TABLE 2 Maximum Cost per Peak Hour Trip per Nexus Study (includes project B-9) TVTC Projects FORMULA NTD Fee Portion of Costs A All Projects (including B-9 $2,294.79 millions of 2007 dollars B Outside Funding (Funded $807.72 millions of 2007 dollars Amount C Unfunded Amount A—B=C $1,487.07 millions of 2007 dollars TVTD Fee D Unfunded Amount w/ C*0.9=D $1,338.36 millions of 2007 dollars 10% reduction E Total Peak Hour Trips Added 98,427 b New Development F TVTD Fee Cost Per Peak D1E=FJ $13,597.52 Hour Tri 'TABLE 3 Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Calculation Summary (Maximum allowed per Nexus Study) Land Use Units Peak Hour Trips % Maximum Fee Trip Rate Trips Rate Single-Family 38f682 DU 0.90 34,814 35.4 $12,238 / DU Multi-Family 19,083 DU 0.62 11,831 12.0 $8f430 / DU Commercial/Retail 6,060.5 KSF 1.67 10,121 10.2 $22,708 / KSF Office 13,745.7 KSF 1.53 21,030 21.4 $20,804 / KSF Industrial 12,808.8 KSF 0.89 11,400 11.6 $12,102 / KSF Other 9,229.8 KSF 1.0 91230 9.4 $13,598 / PHT Total --- --- 98,427 100 --- 12 The values reflected in the Tables 4 and 5 below reflect the maximum cost per peak hour trip with the removal of project B-9 from the project list. TABLE 4 Maximum Cost per Peak Hour Trip (does not include project B-9) MC Projects . FORMULA MD Fee Portion of Costs A All Projects NOT including B-9 $2,292.09 millions of 2007 dollars B Outside Funding (Funded $807.62 millions of 2007 dollars Amount C Unfunded Amount A—B=C $1,484.47 millions of 2007 dollars MD Fee D Unfunded Amount w/ 10% C*0.9=D $1,336.02 millions of 2007 dollars reduction E Total Peak Hour Trips Added 98,427 by New Development F MD Fee Cost Per Peak D/E=F $13,573.75 Hour Tri TABLE 5 Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Calculation Summary (Maximum allowed not including Project B-9) Land Use Units Peak Hour Trips % Maximum Fee Trip Rate Trips Rate Single-Family 38F682 DU 0.90 34,814 35.4 $12,216 / DU Multi-Family 19,083 DU 0.62 11,831 12.0 $8f416 / DU Commercial/Retail 61060.5 KSF 1.67 10,121 10.2 $22,668 / KSF Office 13,745.7 KSF 1.53 21,030 21.4 $20,768 / KSF Industrial 12 808.8 KSF 0.89 11 400 11.6 $12,081 / KSF Other 9f229.8 KSF 1.0 9 230 9.4 $13r574 / PHT Total --- --- 981427 100 --- PROGRAM FINANCE CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED FEES Based on action by the MC to recommend fee rates that are 35 percent of the maximum allowable fee rates, and to phase in fee increases over three years, the 13 recommended TVTD Fees for FY 09/10 are shown in Table 6 below. The fee rates recommended for FY 09/10 will remain consistent with the currently adopted fee rates, except in the case of the fee rate in the "other" category. The fee rate in the "other" category is proposed to be adjusted to bring that fee closer in line with the fee charged for a single-family residence relative to the peak hour trip rate. The fee rate proposed for the 'other" category is still substantially lower than the maximum fee rate allowed as determined by the Nexus Study. TABLE 6 Recommended Fees FY 09/10 (Note: Fees shown in table are in 2008 dollars and are subject to adjustment based on the change in the Construction Cost Index) Land Use Category TVTD Fee Rates Single-Family $ 21036 / DU Multi-Family $ 11295 / DU Commercial / Retail $ 11365 / KSF Office $ 31653 / KSF Industrial $ 2 469 / KSF Other $ 2 262 / PHT Additional fee increases are planned for fiscal year 2010/2011 and fiscal year 2011/2012. The TVTD Fee rates for these years are shown in Tables 7 and 8 below. TABLE 7 Recommended Fees FY 10/11 (Note: Fees shown in table are in 2008 dollars and will be adjusted due to the change in the Construction Cost Index) Land Use Category TVTD Fee Rates Single-Family $ 3 O53 / DU Multi-Family $2,104 / DU Commercial / Retail $ 3 400 / KSF Office $ 5 191 / KSF Industrial $ 3 020 / KSF Other $ 3 393 / PHT 14 TABLE 8 Recommended Fees Beginning FY 11/12 (Note: Fees shown in table are in 2008 dollars and will be adjusted due to the change in the Construction Cost Index). Land Use Category TVTD Fee Rates Single-Family $ 4 275 / DU Multi-Family $ 2 945 / DU Commercial / Retail $ 3,400 / KSF Office $ 71267 / KSF Industrial $ 41227 / KSF Other $ 4 750 / PHT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES The planned improvements are only partially funded by the TVTD Fee. The rate of revenue generated in the Tri-Valley Development Area is dependent on the rate of new development within this area. This rate of revenue affects the timing of the construction of the improvements as it is dependent on the total amount of fees collected less expenditures. Other funding sources may be available to help fund the proposed transportation projects. These other funding sources include but are not limited to Regional Measure C Funds, Regional Measure J Funds (beyond 2009), State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funds, and Federal Program Funds, or local sources such as sales tax, gas tax, etc. REVIEW OF FEES Project cost estimates will be reviewed periodically while the TVTD Fee is in effect. On March 1 of each year, the amount of the fees will be increased or decreased based on the percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area for the 12-month period ending December 31 of the previous calendar year, without further action of the Board of Supervisors. COLLECTION OF FEES Fees will be collected when a building permit is issued in accordance with-Section 913- 4.204 of Title 9 (Subdivisions) of the County Ordinance Code. Fees collected will be deposited into interest bearing trust funds established pursuant to Section 913-8.002 of the County Ordinance Code. 15 INTEREST ON FEES The interest accrued on the fees collected shall continue to accumulate in the trust account and shall be expended for administration, design and construction of the improvements, or to reimburse the County for the cost of constructing the improvements, pursuant to Section 913-8.006 of the County Ordinance Code. IN LIEU DEDICATION A development may be required to construct, or dedicate right-of-way for, a portion of the improvements as a condition of approval. In such an event, the developer may be eligible to receive credit for the MD Fee or reimbursement. The eligible credit and/or reimbursement will be determined in accordance with the County's "Traffic Fee Credit and Reimbursement Policy". JRC:jrc G:\TransEng\AOB\TVTC\Tri-Valley Transportation Council Fee Update\DPR Update\Development Program Report(tvtdf)_2008-10.doc 16 EXHIBIT A Tri-Valley Development Area Boundary AL#AO LU CLOACC.WK COS" SAN[ SAN N TASWARA ,0" d N 3 rOURUN M LWO ASAHI'ON GVERhME YWAIc "L.. ' • S S VM011 CflV •M'W+Alwwbfwu+wMlRb�uw w ' 94rM.�P-���MMpr�M+�70D mnr�aMdN. 17 EXHIBIT B Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit TVTD FEE AREA RODEa C KETT MARTINE o PITTSBURG PINOLE •AN Id N SAN EL SOBRANTE PABL .CONCORD a OAKLE RICHMON PLEASANT. y�`t, HILL BRENTWOO •C RRITOf •CLAYTON •WALNUT CREEK • �' LAF T ORINDA MORAGA NOM Exwoes Baxparatap seas•itnu M Gty al San Roman ana the Tpen of ponvim TVTD FEE AREA LOCATION MAP �s EXHIBIT C Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit (showing adjacent communities and cities) o A MO f ST E rF' £y RD DIA o 0 BLACKHAWK �1y4. v' TAS 11ND. �O9 u�uo � 1 0 ..mnea y� m O farE W."at 0 aur e" O as CO3 r u"m u�a in AAMC ) �rORO� p�AH'�dA MD 'FEE AREA --- __ — . `-"��^ © . ..:� —.:fid... f, aon tvia_ee.agn Jol. 29. 1998 !f:16:52 19 EXHIBIT D Legal Description . Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit Real property in Southern Contra Costa County, California, bounded on the south by Alameda County, bounded on the north by the "South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit" adopted December 6, 1994, by Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors' Resolution 94/604, and bounded on the north and west by the "Central County Area of Benefit" adopted June 13, 1995, by Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors' Resolution 95/273 described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the west line of Section 23, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian with the boundary common to Contra Costa and Alameda Counties; thence from the Point of Beginning, along said County boundary in a general westerly direction 101,550 feet, more or less, to Rancho corner P.C. No. 31.on the boundary of Rancho Laguna de los Palos Colorados; thence along said Rancho boundary, north 19°28'45" east 3,547.16 feet to Rancho Corner P.C. No. 32 and north 1°13'26" east 929.81 feet to the boundary of the Record of Survey filed June 20, 1980, in Book 67 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 9; thence along the boundary of said Record of Survey as follows: 1) north 88°52'39" east 513.17 feet, 2) north 0°15'16" west 1,303.04 feet, 3) north 88043'10" east 1,290.34 feet, and 4) north 0°27'37" west 1,306.53 feet to the northwest corner of Section 28, Township 1 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence along the north lines of Sections 28, 27 and 26 (T1S, R2W), easterly 15,840 feet, more or less, to the west line of Section 25 (T1S, R2W); thence along said west line, southerly 2,640 feet, more or less, to the west quarter corner of said Section 25; thence south 88°43'05" east 1,063.84 feet to the northwest corner of Subdivision MS 28-82 filed November 21, 1983, in Book 108 of Parcel Maps at page 11; thence along the north line of Subdivision MS 28-82, south 88047'23" east 1,062.06 feet to the northwest corner of Subdivision MS 53-81 filed March 28, 1985, in Book 115 of Parcel Maps at page 14; thence along the north line of Subdivision MS 53-81, south 88°43'43" east 3,035.66 feet to the east line of said Section 25 (T1 S, R2W); thence along said east line, northerly 2,640 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of Section 25, said point lying on the southerly boundary of the parcel of land described as PARCEL FIVE in the deed to East Bay Regional Park District recorded April 4, 1974, in Book 7189 of Official Records at page 183; thence along said boundary, in a general northerly direction 2,325.7 feet to the east line of the Parcel of land described as PARCEL ONE in the deed to the United States of America recorded July 29, 1980, in Book 9930 of Official Records at page 913; thence along said east line, in a general northwesterly direction 192.27 feet to an angle point on the boundary of said East Bay Regional Park District PARCEL FIVE (7189 O.R. 183); thence along said boundary, in a general northwesterly direction 1207.59 feet to' the northeast corner thereof, said point being the southeast corner of the parcel of land described as PARCEL TWO in said deed to the East Bay Regional Park District (7189 O.R. 183); thence along the northeast line of PARCEL TWO (7189 O.R. 183), said line also being the boundary of Rancho San Ramon, northwesterly 4,840 feet, more or less, to the most easterly corner of Subdivision MS 150-75 filed June 14, 1976, in Book 45 of Parcel Maps at page 41; thence along the boundary of said Subdivision MS 150-75 as follows: 1) south 63016' west 193.73 feet, 2) south 76°18'50" west 481.39 feet, 3) north 84017' west 2,622.91 feet, and 4) north 0039'40" west 1,233.72 feet to the northwest corner of said Subdivision MS 150-75, said point lying on the south line of Subdivision 6419 filed July 28, 1988, in Book 323 of Maps at page 39; thence along said south line, north 84047'44" west 1,353.46 feet to the southwest corner of said Subdivision 6419, said point lying on the centerline of Section 14, Township 1 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence along said centerline-of Section 14 and 20 the centerline of Section 11 (T1 S, R2W), northerly 6,663.66 feet to the southwest corner of the parcel of land described in the deed to David L. Gates, et ux, recorded April 9, 1981, in Book 10275 of Official Records at page 438; thence along the south line of said Gates parcel (10275 O.R. 438) easterly 300 feet to the most southeast corner thereof, said point lying on the boundary of Subdivision MS 58-75-recorded October 26, 1978, in Book 71 of Parcel Maps at page 23; thence along the boundary of said Subdivision MS 58-75 (71 PM 23) as follows: 1), north 87°05'11" east 274.17 feet, 2) in a general northerly direction 3,354.5 feet to the northeast corner thereof, 3) north 89°12'12" west 176.01 feet, and 4) south 0°36west 41.92 feet to the southeast corner of Subdivision MS 133-72 filed September 7, 1972, in Book 24 of Parcel Maps at page 9; thence along the south line of Subdivision MS 133-72, south 89012'36" west 259.78 feet to the Centerline of Castle Hill Ranch Road (a private road); thence along said centerline in a general northerly direction, 907 feet, more or less to the northeast corner of Lot "B" as shown on the Record of Survey filed May 13, 1984, in Book 74 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 12, said point being the most southern corner of the said "South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit" (Res. 94/604); thence along the boundary of said "South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit", in a general northerly and easterly direction, 6,275 feet, more or less, to the most eastern corner thereof, said point being the intersection of the centerline of Crest Avenue with the extended west right of way line of South Main Street; thence along said extension and west right of way line in a general southerly direction 565 feet, more or less, to the southeast corner of Subdivision MS 114-75 filed October 20, 1976 in Book 49 of Parcel Maps at page 19; thence along the arc of a non-tangent curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 1,096 feet on the northwest line of the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way, northeasterly 52 feet, more or less, to the most western corner of Assessor Parcel Number (hereinafter referred to as APN) 183-093-031 described as PARCEL THIRTY-ONE in the deed to Contra Costa County recorded December 9, 1985 in Book 12652 of Official Records at page 570; thence non-tangent along the southwest line thereof, crossing Engineer's Station 603+65, southeasterly 110 feet, more or less, to the southeast line of said County parcel, being a non-tangent curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 1,196 feet and being concentric with,said northwest line; thence along the arc of said curve, northeasterly 52 feet, more or less, to the southwest line of APN 183-093-023 described in the deed to East Bay Municipal Utility District (hereinafter referred to as EBMUD) recorded January 5, 1968 in Book 5530 of Official Records at page 93; thence along said southwest line, south 22053'01" east 33.76 feet; thence crossing Rudgear Road, southeasterly 245 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of APN 187-040-007 described as PARCEL 11 in the deed to Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District recorded December 20, 1967 in Book 5520 of Official Records at page 451; thence along the boundary of PARCEL 11, in a general southeasterly direction 1,036.02 feet and north 64°16'18" east 239.65 feet, to the most eastern corner thereof on the west right of way line of Interstate Freeway 680; thence along said west line in a general southeasterly direction 836 feet, more or less, to the boundary of APN 187-050-011 and 012 described as Parcel 1 in the deed to Edward Johannessen and Juliet Johannessen 1987 Revocable Living Trust recorded March 22, 1988 in Book 14228 of Official Records at page 211; thence along said boundary as follows: 1) south 63037'38" west 44.33 feet, 2) south 23015'36" east 359.22 feet, 3) north 64°03'39" east 14.72 feet, 4) south 23°15'36" east 144.57 feet, 5) south 45°21'24" west 36.15 feet, 6) south 55°15'24" west 108.21 feet, 7) south 32031'24" west 152.34 feet, 8) south 12004'24" west 20.34 feet, 9) south 33°09'41" east 465.15 feet, 10) north 35°52'50" east 129.8 feet, 11) south 29021'32" east 64.96 feet, and 12) south 69°09'52" east 54.67 feet, to the most southeastern corner thereof on the west right of way line of Interstate Freeway 680; thence along said west line in a general southeasterly direction 1,209.59 feet; thence crossing said freeway, north 53°47'20" east 290 feet, more or less, to the east right of way line thereof; thence along said east line in a general southeasterly direction 2,259.08 feet to the west line of Subdivision 6468 recorded January 8, 1982 in Book 286 of Maps at page 41; thence along said west line in a general northerly 21 direction 828.77 feet to the south line of APN 187-160-013 described as Parcel Three in the deed to the City of Walnut Creek recorded July 5, 1984 in Book 11867 of Official Records at page 965; thence along said south line and the south line of Subdivision 4810 filed September 23, 1976 in Book 189 of Maps at page 48, south 89043'18" east 944.73 feet, to the southwest corner of Subdivision 3037 recorded June 25, 1964 in Book 99 of Maps at page 30; thence along lot lines of Subdivision 3037, south 89°43'18" east 933.43 feet, south 6019'31" east 712.51 feet and along the north right of way line of Livorna Road, north 72023'20" east 145.74 feet; thence crossing Trotter Way, north 72°23'20" east 100 feet, more or less, to the south line of Lot 131 (99 M 30); thence continuing along lot lines of Subdivision 3037 as follows: 1) along the north right of way line of Livorna Road, north 72023'20" east 272.09 feet, 2) north 1036'23" east 275.72 feet, 3) south 88°23'37" east 149.23 feet 4) south 1036'23" west 223.71 feet, and 5) along the north right of way line of Livorna Road in a general easterly direction 79.27 feet, to the east boundary of Subdivision 3037; thence along said boundary in a general northerly direction 1.,532.28 feet to the northeast corner thereof, also being the southeast corner of Subdivision 3827 recorded June 11, 1969 in Book 126 of Maps at page 38; thence along the east line of Subdivision 3827, north 1031'55" east 942.5 feet, to the southwest corner of Subdivision 5366 recorded March 25, 1980 in Book 236 of Maps at page 7; thence along the boundary of Subdivision 5366 in a general easterly direction 400.83 feet to the southeast corner thereof on the boundary of Subdivision 5931 recorded June 29, 1983 in Book 271 of Maps at page 21; thence along the boundary of Subdivision 5931, in a general southeasterly direction 105.63 feet along Livorna Heights Road right of way line and south 55022'55" east 537 feet, to the southeast corner of Subdivision 5931 on the west line of Subdivision 4402 recorded December 27, 1974 in Book 175 of Maps at page 25; thence along said west line, south 1032'10" west 1063.35 feet to the northwest corner of Subdivision 3973 recorded August 18, 1972 in Book 149 of Maps at page 20; thence along the west line of Subdivision 3973 and its southern prolongation, south 1032'10" west 967.1 feet, to the centerline of Livorna Road; thence along said centerline in a general easterly direction 890.41 feet to the southern prolongation of the east line of Subdivision 3973; thence along said prolongation and east line, north 1°44'25" east 1,057.06 feet, to the southeast corner of Subdivision 4402 (175 M 25); thence continuing north 1044'25" east 1,527.78 feet to the northeast corner of Subdivision 4402 on the boundary of Subdivision 4924 recorded May 18, 1977 in Book 196 of Maps at page 28; thence along said boundary in a general southeasterly direction 2,879.25 feet to the southeast corner thereof on the boundary of Subdivision 6743 filed June 9, 1987 in Book 313 of Maps at page 28; thence along said boundary, north 21°53'15" west 3,423.26 feet, north 73°16'01" east 4,566.44 feet, and south 13051'48" east 5,687.22 feet, to the most southern corner thereof on the south line of Rancho San Miguel and the Record of Survey filed August 27, 1970 in Book 53 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 13; thence along said south line, south 76°53'13" east 1,445.41 feet, to the most southern corner of said Record of Survey (53 LSM 13) on the boundary of that 787.58 acre parcel shown on the Record of Survey filed June 22, 1960, in Book 18 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 39; thence along the boundary of said parcel (18 LSM 39), south 6008'40" east 2,389.28 feet and north 87052'06" east 9,881.20 feet to the southeast corner thereof on the northwest line of Lot D, Rancho San Miguel Robert Allen Tract; thence along said northwest line, northeasterly 3,100 feet, more or less, to the centerline of Mount Diablo Scenic Boulevard (North Gate Road); thence along said centerline in a general easterly direction 12,400 feet, more or less, to the centerline intersection of Summit Road; thence along the centerline of Mount Diablo Scenic Boulevard (South Gate Road) in a general southerly direction 6,700 feet, more or less, to the south line of Section 12 Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence along said south line, easterly 4,400 feet, to the northwest corner of Section 18, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence along the west line of said Section 18 (T1S, R1E) southerly 5,280 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner thereof; thence along the south line of Sections 18, 17 and 16, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Mount 22 Diablo Meridian, easterly 15,840 feet, more or less, to the northwest corner of Section 22, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, thence along the west line of said Section 22 (T1S, R1E), southerly 5,280 feet, more or less, to the southwest corner thereof; thence along the south line of Sections 22 and 23 (T1 S, R1 E), easterly 10,560 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of Section 26 (T1 S, R1 E); thence, along the east line of Sections 26 and 35 (T1 S, R1 E), southerly 10,560 feet, more or less to the northeast corner of Section 2, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence along the east line of Sections 2 and 11 (T2S, R1 E), southerly 10,560 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of Section 14, Township 2 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian; thence along the north line of said Section 14, (T2S, R1 E), westerly 2,640 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner of Parcel "D" of Subdivision MS 80-85 filed May 14, 1987, in Book 127 of Parcel Maps at page 32; thence along the east line of said Parcel "D" and its southerly prolongation, southerly 6,250 feet, more or less, to a point on the said boundary common to Contra Costa and Alameda Counties; thence along said County boundary in a general westerly direction 2,800 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning. JH:jlg g:\clerical\exhibits\TVTDaob.exh 6/19/96 23 EXHIBIT E Proposed Project Summary Improvement Cost Summary (Millions of 2007 Dollars) Project Total Cost Total TVTD Fee 46--TShareShare Existing TVTC Projects Exhibit A in the Nexus Stud A-1 ' I-580/I-680 Interchange -COMPLETE- -COMPLETE- southbound to eastbound A-2a Route 84 Expressway (I580- $ 336.57 $ 199.59 I680 A-2b Isabel Route 84/I-580 $ 180.00 $13.50 Interchange A-3 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes $47.00 $34.50 A-5a I-580 HOV Lane Eastbound $161.87 $7.20 A-5b I-580 HOV Lane Westbound $165.40 $18.00 A-6 I-680 HOV Lane (Route 84 to -COMPLETE- -COMPLETE- Top of Sunol Grade A-7 I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road $0.81 $0.73 Interchange A-8 I-680/Alcosta Interchange -COMPLETE- -COMPLETE- A-9a Crow Canyon Road $15.50 $9.86 Improvements Phase 1 A-9b Crow Canyon Road $32.34 $29.11 Improvements Phase 2 A-10a Vasco Road Safety $23.25 $3.74 Improvements Phase 1 A-10b Vasco Road Safety $25.83 $23.25 Improvements Phase 2 Additional TVTC Projects Exhibit B in the Nexus Stud B-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange $705.00 $630.00 westbound to southbound B-2 5 theastbound lane on I-580 $131.30 $118.17 from Santa Rita Road to Vasco Road 4-3 I-580/First Street Interchange $30.30 $3.78 Modification B-4 I-580/Vasco Road Interchange $50.50 $13.14 Modification 24' B-5 I-580/Greenville Road $35.35 $6.99 Interchange Modification B-6 Jack London Boulevard $27.78 $3.19 Extension B-7 EI Charro Road Extension $18.50 $4.50 B-8 Camino Tassajara Widening $49.43 $40.43 (east Blackhawk Drive to County line B-10 I-680 southbound HOV lane gap $55.00 $32.85 closure (Livorna Road to North Main Street B-11a I-680 Express Bus/HOV on and $80.00 $42.57 off ramps Total $2,171.73 $11235.08 NOTE: • Information obtained from Tables 4.1 and 4.2 of the Nexus Study. • Fees collected in unincorporated Contra Costa County will only be used to fund these projects. • Line item cost breakdowns available through Public Works Department. • TVTD Fee share is 10% reduction of the total project estimate cost per the Nexus Study 25 EXHIBIT F Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study 26 CAMBRIDGE Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Fee Update final report preparedfor Tri-Valley Transportation Council prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with f Dowling Associates, Inc. I i Adopted January 30,2008 j Amended February 26,2008 j i January 2008 www.camsys.com final report Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Fee Update prepared for Tri-Valley Transportation Council prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 55512th Street,Suite 1600 Oakland, California 94607 With Dowling Associates, Inc. date January 18, 2008 Adopted January 30,2008 Amended February 26,2008 Tri-Valley Transportation Council NeAus Study Fable of Contents 1.0 Summary..............................................................................................................1-1 2.0 Introduction and Background..........................................................................2-1 3.0 Forecast of New Development and Travel Demand....................................3-1 3.1 Forecast of New Development.................................................................3-1 3.2 Total Travel Demand by Land Use Category.........................................3-3 4.0 Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates....................................................4-1 4.1 Project Selection..........................................................................................4-1 4.2 Selected Projects and Unfunded Costs....................................................4-2 5.0 Nexus Findings....................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Overall Approach.......................................................................................5-1 5.2 Mitigation Fee Act Findings......................................................................5-2 Purposeof Fee.............................................................................................5-2 Useof Fee Revenues...................................................................................5-3 Benefit Relationship ...................................................................................5-4 BurdenRelationship...................................................................................5-6 Proportionality.....................................................:......................................5-7 5.3 Maximum Fees by Type of Land Use......................................................5-8 5.4 Next Steps....................................................................................................5-9 Appendix A. Existing TVTC Projects.....................................................................A-1 Appendix B. Additional TVTC Projects ...............................................................B-1 Cambridge Systematics,Inc. i 7647.001 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study List of Tables Table 1.12007 Maximum Fee Per Land Use Type.................................................1-3 Table 3.1 Household Forecasts 2007 and 2030........................................................3-1 Table 3.2 Employment Forecasts 2007 and 2030.....................................................3-2 Table 3.3 Conversion of Employment Growth to Square Feet of Commercial Building Space 2007 to 2030...............................................3-3 Table 3.4 Travel Demand from New Residential and Commercial Development 2007 to 2030........................................................................3-4 Table 4.1 Existing TVTC Projects-Exhibit A (Millions of 2007 Dollars)............4-2 Table 4.2 Additional TVTC Projects-Exhibit B (Millions of 2007 Dollars).........4-3 Table 5.1 Projected Increase in Congestion Related to New Development* Vehicle Hours of Delay, 2007 to 2030.........................................................5-3 Table 5.2 Build vs. No-Build Scenario Vehicle Hours of Delay, 2005 to 2030"......5-5 Table 5.3 Trip Generation Characteristics by Land Use Type Average AM/PM Peak Hour......................................................................................5-7 Table 5.4 2007 Maximum Fee Rate Per Land Use Type........................................5-9 Cambridge Systematics,Inc. iii Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study List of Figures Figure 1.1.............Increase in Average AM/PM Peak Hour Trips 2005 and 2030*1-1 Figure 1.2Tri-Valley Average Change in Congestion form 2005 to 2030 Change in Vehicle Hour Figure 3.1Travel Demand from New Development Average AM/PM Peak Hour Trip Ends, 2007 tc Figure 5.11ri-Valley Average Change in Congestion from 2005 to 2030 Change in Vehicle Hours c Cambridge Systentatics,Inc. v VV Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study 1.0 Summary New development within the Tri-Valley is forecast to add 57,766 new households,,:. and 87,555 additional employees between 2007 and 2030. This growth will pro, duce an increase of just under 100,000 new peak-hour trip-ends (average.of AM and PM) or just about a 44 percent increase above the present volume of over 223,000 trip-ends. Figure 1,1 Increase in Average AMIPM Peak Hour Trips 2005 and 2030* Average AM/PM; Peak Harr Trips 350,000...................................................,.................... .....,.,... .......... ._................................ {I 321,784 300.000 .__....._ -,............•r .__..,..._-- .._..-.._...... .,._...,._.......... 98,1427 A44% 250,0007----..... . r _______ _______.-------- 223 357 11 a 200.000 --------------- �ay� . ................._....... d r y MMaY 150.000 ............ ........................... -------._. ............................ RfIP e 100,000 ._......... ...._._,..,.,----,....,. .... T�SMX¢Y. jy M Fd R, kx 50,000 .................. ............................ .............................................. 2007 2030 Sources: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.,and Dowling Associates. The current(2005)and projected trips are based on converting ABAG P'03 residential land and employ.-: ment projection to trips The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), therefore, has initiated this... update to its existing development impact fee. This update includes seven of the original 11 projects from the first fee program adopted in 1995 (see Table 4.1), which have not been fully funded. Of the estimated $1 billion cost for the seven:> remaining projects, $389 million remains unfunded. In addition, the update.now - includes 11 additional projects-(see Table 4.2) with a total cost of approximately: Cambridge Systematics,Inc. 1-1 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study $1.3 billion, of which just under $1.1 billion is unfunded. Added together, these 23 projects require roughly$1.5 billion in additional funding. These cost estimates represent the most extensive engineering analysis available at this time. Nevertheless, as the detailed engineering for each project progresses and actual costs of right-or-way acquisition, environmental clearance, construc- tion materials, etc. become better understood, these costs will change. Nearly universal experience indicates that cost estimates increase as more information . becomes available. To account for some uncertainty in the preliminary estimates used to estimate project costs, the TVTC chose to reduce the costs by 10 percent across all projects as a conservative assumption. This reduced the total unfunded cost from$1.5 billion to$1.3 billion. The.analysis of the effects of this growth on roadway congestion shows that, if no further roadway improvements are undertaken, delay is .expected to increase from 5,092 vehicle hours of delay (VHD) in 2005 to 40,058 VHD in 2030 or 660 percent in the morning peak hour and 789 percent in the evening peak hour (Figure 1.2). These increases exclude the effects of increases in traffic transiting the Tri-Valley (i.e., through trips with neither an origin nor a destination in the Tri-Valley). Figure 1.2 Tri-Valley Average Change in'Congestion form 2005 to 2030 Chan e in Vehicle Hours of Delay Excluding Through Trips* Vehicle Hours of Delay(VHD) 45,000-__ - -----__ ---- __--- _._._.______ ________ _________ _.____._ ___._____ --_--_--- Mormng Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour 40,058 40,000.......................3&,t't5-----------------------------------------------— ------------------ . 35,000--._....__.___..-__-_ ___3_____2,890--------------------------------- ______-_ _ _ _- _____---- . ' ------------------ 31,062 _____ _________31,062 30,000 -------------------- --.-_-.. ...-..------------ 25,000-- ---------- - ------------------------- 20,000 ------- ----------20,000-------------------- ............................... 1s000-- -------- — ---------------------------- 10,000 ------- --------------10,000------------------- .................................. 5,092 4,505 o 2005AJA 2030no 2030with 2005PM 2030 no 2030 with PmjectAM ProjectAM Project PM PrejectPM Sources: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.,and Dowling Associates. 'The current(2005) and projected vehicle hours of delay(VHD)are estimated using the Contra Costa County Travel Demand Model and exclude through trips with neither an origin nor a destination in the Tri-Valley. 1-2 Cambridge Systematics,Inc. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study If all of these projects are completed, the number of AM peak hours of delay would decrease 15 percent compared to the No-Build scenario; whereas, the number of PM-peak hour of delay would decrease 22 percent. This 22 percent improvement falls well below the 100 percent mitigation, meaning the fee program will not solve existing traffic congestion problems, only a portion of the future problem. Thus new development may be required to fund the full $1.3 billion unfunded balance of these designated transportation improvements to fully mitigate its impact on the regional transportation system within the Tri- Valley. This $1.3 billion cost is allocated equitably across all types of new development by first dividing the $1.3 billion by the 98,427 average of new AM and PM peak- hour trip-ends, producing a cost per peak-hour trip-end of $13,598. The maxi- mum fee schedule for the five land use types that would fund the full$1.3 billion unfunded balance is shown below (Table 1.1). This maximum fee schedule is derived by multiplying the $13,598 per average peak-hour trip-end by the aver- age peak-hour trip generation rate for each of the five land use types. The TVTC . may set fee rates for each land use category at or below the rates shown in Table 1.1. Table 1.1 2007 Maximum Fee Per Land Use Type Fee Average AM&PM (Cost Per Dwelling Unit Peak-Hour Trips-Ends or Square Feet) Single family dwelling unit 0.90 $12,238 Multifamily dwelling unit 0.62 $8,430 Square foot of retail 1.67 $22.71 Square foot of office 1.53 $20.80 Square foot of industrial 0.89 $12.10 Other-cost per average AM and PM peak- 1.00 $13,598 hour trip-end` Source: Cambridge Systematics,Inc. `This fee amount may be applied to land use that does not conform with the five included in this schedule. TI-ds maximum fee schedule shown in the last column would generate sufficient revenues to fund the total unfunded cost of all selected projects. Nevertheless, Tri-Valley jurisdictions are not obligated to apply this fee schedule. For instance, the existing fee schedule, which was adopted in 1995, embodies the judgment of Tri-Valley jurisdictions to set fee rates at approximately two-thirds of the maxi- mum fee rates calculated in the 1995 nexus study. The 1995 fees were reduced by two-thirds to help foster economic growth within the Tri-Valley while providing a regional funding source that could be used to match and help compete for Federal and State transportation grants and funding programs. Cambridge Systematics,Inc. 1-3 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study 2.0 Introduction and Background The purpose of this study is to provide a single nexus�analysis that all local agen- cies in Tri-Valley subregion can use to update their existing Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF). In addition, the three Contra Costa County jurisdictions may use this update to fulfill their requirement under the.. Growth Management Program of the- original-Measure C Expenditure Plan, , which applies only to Contra Costa County jurisdictions.. This report documents the following': • Section 2.0_ Introduction and Background.L This .section provides a sum- mary,of the.study's results and explains the_background and purpose for the. study,including the decisions leading up to this update of the TVTDF. • Section 3.0- Tri-Valley Growth. Subsection 3.1 presents projected growth in population, employment, and land use based on the Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) Projections 2003 (P'03) forecast of Tri-Valley's growth in population and employment to year 2030. Subsection 3.2 converts the P'03 socioeconomic forecast into trips and summarizes the future travel demand throughout the Tri-Valley. It also presents the results of travel demand mod- eling, demonstrating to what degree new development within the Tri-Valley will increase congestion(i.e.,vehicle hours of delay) in the year 2030. • Section 4.0- Project Descriptions and Cost Estimates. This section lists the 22 projects that the TVTC has elected to receive funding from the TVTDF, and provides total cost estimates. Detailed descriptions are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B. • Section 5.0- Nexus Findings. This final section summarizes the relevant statutory findings for the imposition of development impact fees, and dem- onstrates:'how the,entire unfunded cost of the',selected.projects may be assigned to new development-over the next.23 years (2007to 2030). It also presents alternative fee schedules that would fund some percentage of the unfunded cost. • Appendix A. This section,provides brief-descriptions for each of the ongoing projects that were part of the existing fee,program;including a cost estimate,'a portfolio of likely funding sources,and brief descriptions of its intended benefit.:' California Government Code, Sections 66000,,to.66025.. This code covers the required s statutory,findings under California.s:Mitigation Fee Act:.: Cambridge Systematics,Inc. - 2-1' Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study • Appendix B. This section provides brief descriptions for each new project which have been added with this update,including a cost estimate,a portfolio of likely funding sources,and brief descriptions of its intended benefit. In November '1988, 55 percent of the voters in Contra Costa County passed Measure C, which authorized a 20-year, one-half-cent sales tax increase designed to fund improvements to the County's transportation system. Measure C had two main elements: 1. The Expenditure Plan governs the distribution of sales tax revenues to trans- portation projects,and programs in the County ($740 million); and 2. A Growth Management Program (GMP) attempts to preserve the.expendi- ture plan's :investments by laying out certain requirements that cities and the County must meet in order to receive their share of Measure C's Local Street Maintenance and Jrnprovement funding. The overall goal of the Growth Management Program called for in Measure C is to achieve a cooperative process for Growth Management on a countywide basis, while maintaining local authority over land use decisions and the establishment of performances standards. The program has several components, which are outlined in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (CCTA) implementation documents. A key component of the Growth Management Program requires local jurisdictions to adopt a development mitigation program that ensures that new development pays its fair share of the costs of additional facilities needed to support it. In 1991, the seven jurisdictions of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, Danville, and San Ramon signed a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) that established the TVTC. The purpose of the JPA was the joint preparation of a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan.(TVTC Action Plan) for Routes;of Regional Significance (RRS) and cost sharing of recommended improvements. The TVTC Action Plan was prepared and presented to all mem- ber jurisdictions in April 1995 and updated in 2000 (see Exhibit A). The TVTC Action Plan marked a common understanding and agreement on the Tri-Valley's transportation concerns and directions for improvements. Among its specific recommendations, the TVTC Action Plan presented 15 specific transportation improvements to be given high priority for funding and implementation. This Action Plan ,also recommended the development of a Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee to allocate a fair share of the costs of needed regional infrastructure to new development. The nexus study for the fee program, completed in 1995, justified allocating the unfunded cost needed 'to complete all of the 11 projects identified in the TVTC 'Action Plan to new development. ,The TVTC, however, recommended scaling back by roughly two- thirds the total amount the fee program would collect from the maximum funding needed. 2-2 Cambridge Systenmtics,/tic, Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Nevertheless, the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee specifies that the fee amounts are to be adjusted automatically on an annual basis to reflect changes in regional con- struction costs.2 These annual adjustments in fee amounts have maintained purchasing parity with current construction costs. Since the fee implementation in September 1998, approximately $30 million in fees and interest were collected to fund transportation investments. In addition, the JEPA calls for a periodic update of the fee program to reflect any significant changes in population growth, project status, and other conditions that would require revisions to the fee program. Since 1995, there have been substantial changes in the funding, planning, and traffic setting in which the Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee was originally developed. New funding sources have been established, the TVTC Action Plan has been updated, projects have been completed, project schedules and/or funding plans have shifted, traf- fic patterns have changed, and new regional transportation projects have been identified through various traffic studies. The TVTC responded to these changes by directing the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in 2003 to conduct a new fee nexus study to update the fee, and potentially the project list. In 2004, the TVTC decided to update the Fee Nexus Study to incorporate new regional improvement projects. In November 2006, 70.6 percent of the voters in Contra Costa County passed Measure J, which authorized a 25-year extension to Measure C, a program designed to fund improvements to the County's transportation system first initi- ated in 1988. The program is an extension of a one-half-cent sales tax increase that is projected to raise $2 billion for improvements through 2034. Expenditure of Measure J funds is implemented through the CCTA's Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan(TEP). 2 The amount of the adjustment is based on the change in the Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area, as reported annually in the Engineering News Record(ENR). Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-3 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nemis Study 30 , Forecast of New Development,-*,, and Travel Demand This section consists of two subsectionsn,. Subsection 3.1 describes the ABAG Projections `03 forecast for.population and:employment, and converts,these into,, land use in terms of dwelling units and.nonresidential building square-feet. In Subsection 3.2, the increase in travel demand afrom new development is deter- mined from the land use forecasts. 11 FORECAST OF NEW•DEVELOPMENT The planning horizon for this analysis is 2030, consistent with current land use and transportation forecasts adopted by TVTC. The nexus analysis uses forecasts of dwelling units and employment to estimate new development demand for transportation improvements. Population forecasts for 2030 are ABAG Projections 2003 (P'03), which were fully vetted by the Tri-Valley jurisdictions. While the slightly more recent Projections 2005 (P'05) is now available, these forecasts had not been fully vetted at the time this study was initiated. After comparing the differences between the P'03 and P'05 projections, the TVTC TAC directed the consultant team to proceed with the fully vetted P'03 version of the CCTA model. The CCTA travel demand model converts the ABAG household (Table 3.1) and employment (Table 3.2) forecasts into peak hour trips and assigns them to the transportation network. Table 3.1 Household Forecasts 2007 and 2030 - 2007.2030 Percent k 2007* 2030 ,',. Growth t change. Single family 91,136 129,818 38,682.: 42%_ Multifamily 21,959 41,042 19,083 87% Total Households 113,095 170,860 57,765 51%';` Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Projections,2003. *Dwelling units for 2007 were estimated by interpolating between P'03 estimates for 2000 and 2010. ABAG employment forecasts are converted into square feet of nonresidential:.., building space. The projected number of new residential units and nonresiden-.• tial square footage is then multiplied;by-standard trip generation .rates to s . Cambridge Systematics, tnc. 3-1 Tri-Valley Transportation Connal Nexus Study calculate the total number of traffic trips generated by new development in the Tri-Valley. Table 3.2 Employment Forecasts 2007 and 2030 2007.2030 Percent Employee Categories 2007* 2030 Growth Change Retail 36,806 48,927 12,121 33% Service 83,608 129,427 45,819 55% Other 54,076 69,459 15,383 28% Agricultural 1,483 1,182 -301 -20% Manufacturing 20,048 30,895 10,847 54% Trade/Wholesale 10,986 14,371 3,385 31% Total Employment 207,006 294,261 87,254 42°% Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Projections,2003. *Employment for 2007 was estimated by interpolating between P'03 estimates for 2000 and 2010. The method for converting the six categories of net employment growth (as shown in Table 3.2). into four categories of commercial building square feet (office,retail, industrial, and other) involves two steps. First, the six categories of employment are consolidated into four categories of commercial land use based on an analysis of employment by land use known as the Natelson Report.3 Second, these consolidated employment forecasts are converted to building square footage using employee densities. The results are shown in Table 3.3. II 3 The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Suntntanj Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), October 31, 2001. Tile density factors were derived from a random sample of 2,721 parcels drawn from across five counties (L,os Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura). Such a study could not be identified for Contra Costa County. The SCAG study's density factors are based on the largest sample of properties and are used in development impact fee studies throughout the State. 3-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Table 3.3 Conversion of Employment Growth.to Square Feet of,." Commercial Building Space 2007 to 2030 Employee Growth Employee Density Building Square Feet Land Use 2007.2030 (Square Feet/Employee) 2007.2030 Retail 12,121 500 6,060,500 Office/services 45,819 300 13,745,700 Industrial* 14,232 .3 900 12,808,800 Other 15,383 600 9,229,800 Source: - The Natelson Company,Inc.,Employment Density Study.Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments;October 31,2001,,Table 2-A,page.15. ' Note: Source data based on random sample,of 2,721 developed parcels across five Los Angeles area counties(Los Angeles,Orange, Riverside,San Bernardino,and Ventura). MuniFinancial estimated weighting factors by land use categories used in the survey to calculate average employment densities by major category(commercial,office,and industrial). *Adjusted to correct for over-sampling of industrial parcels in Ventura County. The results of this conversion (shown in Table 3.2) are applied in Section 5.0 to calculate an updated fee schedule. As a brief preview, this calculation involves four steps. First, the net increase in commercial square footage is converted into total trip generation from new commercial development. Second, these net new trips are added to the trip generated from new residential growth. Third, this total amount of new trip generation is divided into the total unfunded cost of the improvements described in Section 4.0 to calculate the cost per new trip. Fourth, this cost is used to generate the updated fee schedule. 3.2 TOTAL TRAVEL DEMAND BY LAND USE CATEGORY' Tables 3.1 and 3.3 show forecasts of new-development broken-out,to the number of dwelling units for single and.multi-unit residential units and square feet of four types of commercial development. The amount of new travel demand (i.e., trip generation) that this new development-will produce is determined by multi- plying these net increases in •residentiahc units and new commercial building space by corresponding trip generation rates shown in Table 3.4. These trip,gen- eration rates are the average,of AM And-I'M peak-hour trip generation rates from the Institute of Traffic Engineers,(ITE)'Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. Table 3.4 and Figure 3.5 shows that all types of new development will increase number of peak-hour trips by approximately 100,000 new peak-hour trips or 44 percent between 2007 and 2030. Cambridge Systematics,Inc. 3-3 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Table 3.4 Travel Demand from New Residential and Commercial Development 2007 to 2030 Land Use Land Use Growth Trip Generation Rate* New Trips* Residenttal(dwelling units); � � � �� Single family 38,682 0.90 34,814 Multifamily 19,083 0.62 11,831 Total Residential 57,765 46,645 Nonresidential(thousand square feet) Retail 6,060,500 1.67 10,118 Office 13,745,700 1.53 20,962 Industrial 12,808,800 0.89 11,400 Other 9,229,800 1.6 9,230 Total Nonresidential 41,844,800 51,782 Grand Total 98,427 `Average AM and PM daily trips. The 98,427 increase in new trips.does not include any change in the trips that transit Tri-Valley (i.e., through trips or external-external trips). This increase is roughly 31 percent of the 322,500 total trips that have an origin and or destina- tion in Tri-Valley (Figure 3.5). i I 3-4 Cambridge Systematics,Inc. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Figure 3.5 Travel Demand from New Development Average AM/PM Peak Hour Trip Ends, 2007 to 2030 Average AM/PM Peak Hour Trips 350,000......................................................................._............._............... 321,784 300,000 ................................................................................................................................................................... 98,427 044% 2 50,000......................................................................................................................................... 223,357 200,000........................................... ........................................................ 150,000........................................... ........................................................... ..................................................... 100,000........................................... ........................................................... ..................................................... 50,0001--l- ........... ---........................................... ...................................................... 0 2007 2030 Cannbridge Systematics,Inc. 3-5 4' Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study 40' Improvement Projects ,: and Cost Estimates",- This section identifies the 22 projects that :the;.>TVTC has elected to receive funding from the Tri-Valley Transportation Development iFee.,The first 11 are pro- jects that were included in the original programadopted in 1995 (Appendix A). The second set of 11 is new projects that are being in included in this update (Appendix B). 4.1:"`' PROJECT SELECTION• The most common approach for selecting transportation projects involves a comprehensive planning process to develop a project list that mitigates the impacts of new development where projects are most feasible, but also may be implemented with reasonable expectations of community support. This approach integrates the planning to accommodate growth with ongoing state, regional, and local planning efforts. This approach has been followed in the preparation of the TVTC Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance and cost sharing of recommended improvements. The other planning efforts over the past 20-plus years have included (but are not limited to) the following: • Contra Costa Countywide.Transportation Plan; • Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan; • Contra Costa County Sales Tax Measures (Measures B,C,and J); • Tri-Valley Triangle Traffic Study; • I-680 corridor studies;and ` • General plan updates for Tri-Valley jurisdictions,-�including Alameda and' Contra Costs Counties. As a result of this integrated transportation:plarming, elected officials have: determined that the projects identified in,Appendices A and B constitute the, most feasible improvements to reduce traffic.congestion caused by new devel- opment in the Tri-Valley. The travel demand. modeling documented in Section 5.0 confirms that these projects do reduce the congestion caused by new development within Tri-Valley, but these reductions do not improve conditions. below what they are at present. Cambridge Systematics,Inc. 4-1. Til-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Stud r 4.2 SELECTED PROJECTS AND UNFUNDED COSTS The 22 selected[ projects are a combination of 11 of the original projects (often referred to as Exhibit A) funded through the fee program adopted in 1995 and an additional 11 projects (Exhibit B list). Three out of the 22 projects have been completed, and thus do not need additional funds from the current fee update. Such is the case of I-580/I-680 Interchange (southbound to eastbound), I-680/ Alcosta Boulevard Interchange, and I-680 HOV Lanes from SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade, all under Exhibit A. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 show the total 'investment cost and unfunded amount of projects described in Appendices A and B,respectively. Table 4:1 Existing TVTC Projects— Exhibit A (Millions of 2007 Dollars) Total Unfunded Project Cost Cost Comments A-1 1-580/1-680 Interchange(southbound to eastbound) — — Project completed. A-2a Route 84 Expressway 1-580 to 1-680 $336.57 $221.77 Project study report complete. A-21b Isabel Route 84/1-580 Interchange $180.00 $15.00 Environmental complete. A-3 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes $47.00 $38.33 Segments 1 and 3 complete. i A-4 West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station — — Under construction. A-5a 1-580 HOV Lane Eastbound $161.87 $8.00 Project split Into phases. Project study A-5b 1-580 HOV Lane Westbound $165.40 $20.00 report complete. A-6 1-680 HOV Lanes,SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade — — Southbound complete. Northbound not considered for funding. A-7 1-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange $0.81 $0.81 North half complete. A-8 1-680/Alcosta Interchange — — Project complete. A-9a Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 $15.50 $10.95 Project split into A-9b Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 $32.34 $32.34 Phases. A-10a Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 $23.25 $4.15 Project split into A-10b Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 $25.83 $25.83 Phases. A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit $20.36 $12.16 BRT added to scope. Total $1,008.93 $389.34 I i I I I I 4-2 Cambridge Systematics,Inc. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Table 4.2 Additional TVTC Projects- Exhibit B (Millions of 2007 Dollars) Project Total Cost Unfunded Cost B-1 1-58011-680 interchange(westbound to southbound) $705.00 $700.00 B-2 5th eastbound lane on 1-580 from Santa Rita to Vasco Road $131.30 $131.30 B-3 1-580/First Street interchange modification $30.30 $4.20 B-4 1-580/Vasco Road interchange modification $50.50 $14.60 B-5 1-580/Greenville Road interchange modification $35.35 $7.77 B-6 Jack London Boulevard extension $27.78 $3.54 B-7 EI Charro Road Extension $18.50 $5.00 B-8 Camino Tassajara widening: East Blackhawk Drive to County line $49.43 $44.92 B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road 1-680 Interchange $2.70 $2.60 Improvements B-10 1-680 SB HOV lane Gap Closure,Livorna to North Main $55.00 $36.50 B-1 la 1-680 Express Bus/HOV on-and Off-Ramps $80.00 $47.30 B-1 lb 1-680 Transit Corridor Improvements $100.00 $100.00 Total $1,285.86 $1,097.73 The total investment cost of projects from Exhibits A and B,excluding completed projects, totals approximately $2,295 million, of which amount almost $1,487 million or 65 percent are currently unfunded. Given that many of the project costs have been estimated using only preliminary engineering, the TVTC has reduced the total cost of all 22 projects by 10 percent to account for some degree of uncertainty. This discount reduces the total unfunded cost to $1,338 million(in 2007 dollars). Appendices A and B provide the descriptions of each project. Each description includes a cost estimate, a portfolio of likely funding sources, and a brief description of its intended benefit. Cambridge Systematics,Inc. 4-3 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nems Study 5.0 Nexusc-Findings . This section documents a reasonable relationship between-;increased travel demand from new development on the Tri-Valley regional transportation sys- tem, the cost of the improvements needed to accommodate that growth, and an , impact fee to fund those investments. Section 5.1 explains the overall,approach to establishingra legal nexus. Section 5.2 steps through the findings required by state statutes to demonstrate how the entire unfunded cost of the selected pro- jects can be assigned to new development over the next 23 years (2007 through 2030). Finally, Section 5.3 presents a maximum cost per trip that would,fund the unfunded cost: 5.1 OVERALL APPROACH Impact fees may be calculated using a purely technical method that would fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The four steps followed in any development impact fee study include the following: 1. Prepare growth projections; 2. Identify facility standards; 3. Determine the amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate new development based on facility standards and growth projections;and 4. Calculate the public facilities fee by allocating the total cost of facilities per unit of development. As stated in Section 4.1, the final set of improvements was determined through the planning efforts of the CCTA; the Tri-Valley jurisdictions; and other stake- holders (including the Tri-Valley Business Council, developers, and other private and .public-sector participants). TVTC directed.. the .consultants to conduct the nexus study and calculate a maximum fee based;on the dist of pro- jects identified in Section 4.0 (and described in Appendices A and B) to the great- est extent technically defensible under the Mitigation Fee Act. Consistent with the- TVTC's directions, the full cost of funding these improvements is used to calcu- late the maximum.fee-rates the TVTC could apply to all new residential and non= residential development in the Tri-Valley between 2007 and 2030. Since the final:-t• list of projects was developed through a long inclusive process with stakeholders and policy-makers at the table, the projects represent the most feasible capacity enhancements to Tri-Valley's transportation system. Cambridge Systematics,Inc. 5-1 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study 5.2 MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS Development impact fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building per- mit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsi I le for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees,the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act(Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in-1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, con- tained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee pro- grams. The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee. The five statutory findings required for adoption of the TVTC impact updated fee have already been adopted when the first TVTC fee was adopted in 1995. They are presented here and supported by the Nexus Analysis section (Section 5.0) of this report. All 'statutory references below are to the Act. TY is sample framework for the Mitigation Fee Act findings is only to provide local agencies with guidance, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Local agencies should customize the findings for their jurisdiction and consult with their legal counsel prior to adoption of the updated TVTC impact fee. Purpose of Fee For the first finding, the local agency must identify the purpose of the fee (Section 66001(x)(1)). The TVTC policy, as expressed through the TVTC Action Plan,is.that new development shall contribute for mitigation of their impacts on the Routes of I:egional Significance, and that the cost sharing of recommended improvements will be implemented through the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF) regional impact fee program. This is administered by the seven jurisdictions of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Dublin, Pleasanton,Livermore, Danville, and San Ramon,which all signed a joint powers authority (JPA). The fee advances a legitimate public interest by enabling the TVTC to fund improvements to transportation infrastructure required to accommodate new development. This finding is documented by the analysis of the projected increase in travel over the next 23 years generated by the new development that is projected to be occupied in the Tri-Valley. This growth in new residents and employees is prIo- jected to increase cumulative average daily delay on the Tri-Valley regional roadways by over six and one-half fold (660 percent) in the morning peak and almost eight fold (789 percent) in the evening peak. This increase in congestion excludes any effects from more through traffic, (i.e., trips the transit the Tri-Valley but neither start nor end there). Table 5.1 shows the current average daily vehicle hours of delay (VHD) and the projected increase by the year 2030 (see Figure 5.1). 5-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i J Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Table 5.1 Projected IncreaseAn Congestion Related to New Development*..- Vehicle Hours of Delay, 2007 to 2030 2007 Change _w Current 2030 2007=2030 AM peak 5,092 . 38,715 660% PM peak 4,505 40,058 789% *Through traffic(external-external trips)was removediand its effects of VHD have been excluded. Use of Fee Revenues For the second finding, the.local agency must identify.the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public"facilities' the facilities shall be identified. That -identification may, but need !not, be. made by reference to a capital . improvement plan, as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in appli- cable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged (Section 66001(a)(2)). The Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee will fund expanded facilities on the Routes of Regional Significance to serve new devel- opment. These facilities include the following: • Roadway widening; • Roadway extension; • Traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements; • Freeway interchanges and related freeway improvements; • Safety improvements needed to mitigate the higher volume of traffic gener- ated by new development on a major arterial or other regional facility;and • Improvements required for regional express bus and rail transit. The-.TVTC has restricted spendingsfee revenues to capital projects that,expand _ capacity on the Routes of Regional Significance to serve new development or mitigate its impact of the safety of the facility. Costs for planned traffic facilities are identified in Section 4.0 of this report. Costs funded by the Tri-Valley Transportation Development-Fee-may include project administrations and man- agement, design and engineering, ,right-of-way acquisition, and construction. More detailed descriptions of planned facilities, including their specific location, if known at this time, are shown in Appendices A and B attached to this report,.,,. the TVTC Action Plan, and other documents. The seven agencies implementing-., the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee may use fee revenues for the purposes of expanding capacity and mitigating the impacts of more congestion on the Routes of Regional Significance to accommodate new development as designated in the.Strategic Expenditure Plan. l Cambridge Systematics,Inc. - 5-3 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Benefit Relationship For the third fividing, the local agency must determine how there is a reasonable relationship or nexus between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (Section 66001(a)(3)). In other words, the objective this nexus analysis is to show how the improvements will mitigate the impact of new development on a facility standard. The facility standard determines new development's need to provide additional capacity in order to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) as measured by systemwide delay on regional transports- tion facilities. Thus, the current LOS provides a benchmark that is used to com- pare the existing conditions (2007 Base Year LOS) on the transportation system with two future year scenarios(2030).' Both future scenarios include all of the travel associated with new development within the Tri-Valley, but do not include the new travel associated through trips (i.e., trips that have origins and destinations outside the Tri-Valley. The first see- nario (i.e., Future No-Build) is based on a year 2030 transportation network that will carry all of the locally produced or attracted new trips,but will only include improvements that are expected to be funded under at the LOS for the financially_ constrained Regional Transportation Plan(RTP) without the proposed Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee projects (No-Build Scenario). The second scenario (i.e., Future Build) is based on a year 2030 transportation network that includes all of the additional improvements that are expected to he funded with the updated .Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. These three comparisons must show that: 1) the Base Year conditions are better than the Future No-Build conditions; 2) the Future Build conditions are better than the Future No-Build; and 3) the Future Build conditions are not better than the Base Year conditions. These comparisons ensure that new development does not fund infrastructure needed to serve existing development. These comparisons also demonstrate a nexus between the impacts of new development and their share of the funding for the TVTC Action Plan projects. This nexus may, be demonstrated at a systemwide level. The systemwide nexus is measured using the aggregate regional peak-hour average weekday vehicle hours of delay on all the significant roadways (includes freeways, expressways arterials, and major collectors) in the Tri-Valley on the 2005 Base Year networks and the two 2030 No-Build and Build networks. The aggregate vehicle hours of delay provides a reasonable systemwide measure of the impact of new develop- ment on congestion and mobility,and is sufficient as the measure of nexus. The CCTA travel demand model is the certified model being used to establish a technical nexus between the proposed projects and the impacts of new develop- ment on congestion (measured as recurrent delay). The model is based on the 4 The 2005 and 2030 year benchmarks were chosen, because these calculations are based on the CCTA travel demand model that has only these years available. 5-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i� Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study e spatial interrelationships among economic factors;housing and population:fac- tors,land use patterns,.and the transportation system. The model generates 2030 forecasts for small geographic areas, including-the traffic analysis zones (TAZ) used in the transportation modeling process: The CCTA travel demand model complies with Federal mandates that transportation plans consider the long- range effects of the interaction between land uses and the transportation system. According to the CCTA travel demand model, between 2005 and 2030, if no pro- jects are undertaken, the number of AM peak hours of delay is expected to increase 660 percent from 5,092 to 38,715 hours, while the number of PM peak ; hours of delay is expected to escalate 789 percent from 4,505 to 40,058 hours. If the projects are undertaken, the number of AM peak hours of delay would decrease 15 percent compared to the No-.Build scenario; whereas, the number of PM peak hour of delay would decrease.22 percent: This:.modest improvement demonstrates that the funding of the.designated new transportation improve- ments (i.e., the construction of projects shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2) by new development only partially mitigates their contribution to future congestion. Table 5.2 and Figure 5.1 show the comparison between the Future Build and Future No-Build scenarios. Table 5.2 Build vs. No-Build Scenario Vehicle Hours of Delay, 2005 to 2030' 2030 Difference 2005-2030 Built vs. Hours of Delay 2005 No-Build Build No-Build No Built AM Peak 5,092 38,715 32,890 660% -15% PM Peak 4,505 40,058 31,062 789% -22% 'The through trips have been excluded from these figures and,therefore,their affects on delay have been removed. Canibridge Systematics,Inc. 5-5 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Stud Figure 5.1 Tri-Valley Average Change in Congestion from 2005 to 2030 Change in Vehicle Hours of Delay Excluding Through Trips' Vehicle Hours of Delay(VHD) 45,000 . .. ... . .1111... Evening Peak... .,. Hour................................ g 40,058 40,000 ornm 38,715 Peak Hour . 35,000_1111... ......... ..................._.. ........................._....................................._. 32,890 - ..............L... 31,082 30,000........................ ...... .......__.._...................................._.........11.1...1................ ..... 25,000.........,......................................._........ ....... .......................... .................................................. 20,000.......... ... ..............................................................----........_._.... 15,000....._...._.........._..._....._._................ ....... ................................................................................,............. 10,000......._.._............................................. ...... ............................................................................................... 5,09:! 4 505 0 2005AM 12030 no 2030 with 2005PM 2030no 2030 with ProjectAM ProjectAM ProjectPM ProjectPM Sources: Cambridge Systematics,Inc.,and Dowling Associates. *The current(2005)and projected vehicle hours of delay(VHD)are estimated using the Contra Costa County Travel Demand Model and exclude through trips with neither an origin nor a destination in the Tri-Valley. This analysis has determined that the planned projects identified in this report will expand the capacity of the Routes of Regional Significance to accommodate the increased trips generated by new development. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of fee revenues and the residential and nonresiden- tial types of neve development that will pay the fee. Burden Relationship For the fourth finding the local agency must determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (Section 66001(a)(4)). New dwelling units and building square' footage are indicators of the demand for transportatiUn improvements needed to accommodate growth. As additional dwelling units and building square footage are created, the occupants of these structures gene r- ate additional vehicle trips and place additional burdens on the transportation system. 5-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Tri-Valley Transportation Coun-il Nexus Study The need for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee is based on the CCTA transportation model projections of growth that show an increase in vehi- cle hours of delay on the Routes of Regional Significance, primarily as a result of new development, even with planned improvements to that system. The model estimated impacts from new development based on trip generation rates that varied by land use category, providing a reasonable relationship-between the type of development and the need for improvements. The trip.generation rates applied in this nexus study are an average•of AM and PM peak-hour vehicle trips rates from the ITE to estimate,travel demand by type of land use. These were the same rates used in the initial 1994 TVTCDF calcula- tion. Vehicle trips can be calculated in a consistent manner across land use cate- gories based on population.and employment estimates by land.:use category. This-enables the impact of development to be distinguished between land use categories,a key requirement of the.Mitigation Fee Act. This method is preferred to the most common alternative using vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT, on the other hand, is available from transportation models only for a limited num- ber of production and attraction categories: home-work, home-school, home- college,home-other,and nonhome. Table 5.3 shows the calculation of travel demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Table 5.3 Trip Generation Characteristics by Land Use Type Average AM/PM Peak Hour Percentage of Capture Trips Land Use Gross Trip Rate (Pass by Trips) Net Trip Rate Single Family Household 0.90 0% 0.90 Multifamily Household 0.62 0% 0.62 Retail(1,000 sq ft)" 2.39 30% 1.67 Office(1,000 sq ft)"'. 1.53 0% 1.53 Industrial(1,000 sq ft) 0.89 0% 0.89 t Other(1,000 sq ft) 1.00 0% 1.00 Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.,with data from the ITE Traffic Generator Manual and Minnesota Department of Transportation. *Institute of Traffic Engineers has estimated that 30 percent of trips to and from retail land use are intermediate stops on a longer trip made of other purposes. Proportionality For the fifth finding, the local agency must determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the,cost of the public facility, or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (Section 66001(b)). This reasonable relationship.between the Tri-Valley Cambridge Systematics,Inc. 5-7 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Transportation Development Fee for a specific development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated vehicle trips the project will add to the Routes of Regional Significance. The total fee for a specific residential development is based on the number and type of new dwelling units multiplied by the trip generation rate for the applicable residen- tial land use category. The fee for a specific nonresidential development is based in a similar manner on the amount of building square footage by land use cate- gory. Larger projects generate more vehicle trips and pay a higher fee than smaller projects of the same land use category. Thus, the fee schedule ensures a reasonable relationship between the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Flee for a specific development project and the cost of the transportation improve- ments attributable to the project. 5.3 MAXIMum FEES BY TYPE OF LAND USE The following steps describe how the fees are calculated for each of the six differ- ent types of land uses: 1. Section 4.0 documents the investment cost for projects proposed and not yet built or under construction (described in Appendices A and B) totals $2,295 million, of which$1,487 million remains unfunded from other sources. This unfunded amount has been reduced by 10 percent to $1,338 million to account for some uncertainty in the preliminary engineering used to estimate project costs. The amount corresponds to the cost that new developments expected expected to coveroto mitigate future congestion. 2. Forecast peak-hour trips generated by new development per type of land u,e using an average of AM and PM peak-hour vehicle trip rates from the ITE. According to estimates shown in Table 3.4, a total of 98,427 new average AM and PM peak-hour trips-ends will be generated between 2007 and 2030. 3. Divided the 98,427 new peak-hour trips by the total unfunded cost of $1,338 million. This produces an average cost per peak-hour trip of$13,598 $1,338,363,000 =$13,598 98,427 4. This cost per average AM and PM trip-end amount is then multiplied by the trip generation rates for each of the six land use types, which produces a maximum free for each land use. For, example the equation used to calculate the fee for a single family home is: $13,598 x 0.90=_$12,238 per single family home Where:0.90 is the average of AM and PM peak-hour trips generated from a single family dwelling unit. The fee for a multifamily dwelling unit is: $13,598 x 0.62=_$8,430 5-8 Cannbnidge Systennatics, Inc. J Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Where:0.62 is the average of AM andr.PM peak-hour trips generated-from a multifamily dwelling unit. The fee per square foot of retail-space is: $13,598 x 1.67=$22.7.1 per thousand square feet of retail development Where:1.67 is the average•_of.AM and PM peak-hour trips generated from a square foot of retail-development.- Table 5.4 presents ,the results of these calculations for each of the six land.use, types. Note that the trip generation rates for two residential land use types are expressed as average AM and PM peak-hour trip-ends per dwelling unit, while the trip generation rates for the four commercial land use types are expressed as average AM and PM peak-hour trip-ends• per square foot. The "other" commercial land use applies a rate:of one average AM and.PM trip-end, so the corresponding fee amount is the cost per average AM and PM trip-end calculated above. This fee may be applied to any commercial land use that does not conform to the three types specified in Table 5.4. Table 5.4 2007 Maximum Fee Rate Per Land Use Type Fee (Fee Rate per Dwelling Average AM&PM Unit Peak Hour Trips-Ends* or Square Feet) Single family(units) 0.90 $12,238 Multifamily(units) 0.62 $8,430 Retail(sq ft) 1.67 $22.71 Office(sq ft) 1.53 $20.80 Industrial(sq ft) 0.89 $12.10 Other(trip) 1.00 $13,598 Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.- * nc.*TVTC and the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. The fees shown in the last column would generate sufficient revenues to fund the; . total unfunded cost of all selected projects.,Nevertheless,Tri-Valley jurisdictions are not obligated,to apply.-tlus fee schedule..The existing fee schedule embodies the judgment of Tri-Valley jurisdictions to reduce the maximum fee amounts determined in the,first~nexus analysis by roughly two-thirds. This type of i, adjustment may be applied to the maximum fee schedule shown in Table 5.4. 5.4 NEXT STEPS This nexus report documents.the;technical findings needed to adopt a fee sched-w- ule to fund the projects listed in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. The next step will be for the Cambridge Systenmtics,Inc. 5-9 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study TVTC to adopt a fee schedule they believe will be the most appropriate for their needs. If the final fees adopted by the TVTC were below the maximums calcu - lated in Subsection 5.5, the resulting revenue shortfall will require the TVTC to take one or both of the two following actions: 1. Increase funding from other sources to fill shortfalls in specific projects. These may include Federal earmarks, state funding, local general fund ; development agreements that include direct funding, dedication of right-of- way; or in-kind construction, assessment districts, tolling, environmental mitigation through CEQA,and value capture techniques. 2. Full funding for only selected projects. The TVTC has used this practice by prioritizing funding through the Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP) to com- plete a subset of the projects identified in the first impact fee program adopted in 1995. If applied to this update of the fee program, the TVTC may need to rank the list of projects accordingly through an update to the SEP. Regardless of what final fee schedule is adopted, the implementation of the pro- ject will require the TVTC:to set priorities for which projects are funded first. This may be best accomplished through an update to the Strategic Expenditure ' Plan(SEP). 5-10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix . A. Existing TVTC Projects The following projects were included in the 1995 Tri-Valley Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, and the original fee nexus study for the Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee, adopted in 1998. These projects continue to be a priority for the Tri-Valley. Project scopes, cost estimates, and status have been updated based on the most recent data available. Table A.1 Projects Adopted for Fee Program in 1998 Total., Unfunded '• Project Cost., Cost Comments A-1 1-580/1-680 Interchange - - Project completed (southbound to eastbound) A-2a Route 84 Expressway 1-580 to $336.57 $221.77 Project study report complete 1-680 A-21b Isabel Route 84/1-580 $180.00 $15.00 Environmental complete Interchange A-3 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes $47.00 $30.00 Segments 1 and 3 complete. Cost shown is for Segment 2 A4 West Dublin/Pleasanton BART - - Under construction Station A-5a 1-580 HOV Lane Eastbound $161.87 $8.00 Project split into phases,project A-5b 1-580 HOV Lane Westbound $165.40 $20.00 study report complete A-6 1-680 HOV Lanes,SR 84 to Top - - Southbound complete,northbound of Sunol Grade not considered for funding A-7 1-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road $0.81 $0.81 North half complete Interchange A-8 1-680/Alcosta Interchange.-.. - - Project complete A-9a Crow Canyon Road $15.50 $10.95 Project split into phases Improvements Phase 1 A-91b Crow Canyon Road $32.34.1?t $32.34 Improvements Phase 2 A-10a Vasco Road Safety $23.25=. $4.15 Project split into phases Improvements Phase 1 A-10b Vasco Road Safety $25.83 $25.83 Improvements Phase 2 A-11 Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit - $20.36 $12.16 BRT added to scope The pages below provide details about each project including scope,benefit,cost, and funding. Cambridge Systematics,Inc. A-1 I Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix Project No. A-1, 1-58011-680 Interchange (Southbound to Eastbound) Involved Agencies: Caltrans and the Alameda County Transportation Authority. Project Type: Freeway-freeway interchange modifications. Project Scope: The project constructed the southbound to eastbound flyover, a northbound to eastbound direct connector, southbound on and off hook ramps, and a northbound on ramp. Need/Purpose: This;project was needed to improve safety and reduce conges- tion on southbound and northbound I-680 near I-580, and mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment. This project was approved by the voters of Alameda County as a portion of the Measure B sales tax program. Current Status: This project has been completed. Project funding and cost: Most of the project was funded by Measure B. TVTC initially appropriated $5.6 million in TVTDF match funds, including approxi- mately $4.2 million in funds provided to the project to fulfill its funding needs and $1.4 million in reimbursements to the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton for prior contributions. Project No. A-2a, Route 84 Expressway 1-580 to 1-680 Involved Agencies: Caltrans, Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority,City of Livermore,City of Pleasanton,and Alameda County. Project Type: Expressway. Project Scope: This project will be widen and reconstruct Route 84 as an expressway in several stages using a variety of funding sources. The ultimate configuration is expected to consist of six lanes from 1-580 to Stanley Boulevard and four lanes from Stanley Boulevard to I-680. A TVTC-funded project study report was completed in 2003. A Caltrans SHOPP-funded project is under con- struction to realign Route 84 to expressway standards between Ruby Hill Drive and south of Pigeon Pass. Other near-term projects will relocate utilities between Airway Boulevard and Jack London Boulevard, and widen and utility relocation between Jack London Boulevard and Ruby Hill Drive. Subsequent stages include realignment, relocation, and widening between Pigeon Pass and I-680, ramp improvements at the Route 84/I-680 interchange, and construction of a southbound auxiliary lane on I-680 from Route 84 to Andrade Road. Need/Purpose: This project is needed to improve safety and reduce congestion on Route 84, I-580, and I-680 between Livermore and Sunol, and mitigate the impacts of local. and regional growth in housing and employment. The protect also will improve access to regional routes for portions ,of Livermore and Pleasanton. The existing two-lane roadway between Livermore and 1-680 is operating at capacity at certain locations during the peak periods. This project[is identified in the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan,and the Alameda Countywide A-2 Cambridge Systematics,Inc. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix Transportation Plan. Portions of the project-are,included in the voter-approved Alameda County Measure B sales tax program. The Tri-Valley Triangle study, completed in 2007, included this project as.an,important part of the proposed regional transportation network for the-.Tri=Valley.. This project will reduce regional traffic volumes from local Pleasanton..roadways. Current Status: A project study report was.completed in 2003. A Caltrans SHOPP-funded project is under construction to realign Route 84 to expressway standards between Ruby Hill Drive and south of Pigeon Pass. Other near-term projects will relocate utilities between-:Airways Boulevard and Jack London Boulevard, and widen and utility relocation between Jack London Boulevard and Ruby Hill Drive. Subsequent stages include realignment, relocation, and wid- ening between Pigeon Pass and I-680, ramp improvements at the Route 84/I-680 interchange, and construction of a southbound--auxiliary lane on 1-680 from Route 84 to Andrade Road. Cost Estimates and Funding (2006 dollars): The total cost for this project is estimated at$336.57 million. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) TVTDF $4.80 Measure B $80.00 SHOPP $30.00 Total $114.80 $336.57 $221.77 Project No. A-2b, State Route 8411-580 Interchange Involved Agencies: City of Livermore,Caltrans, Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority,- and7. Alameda ._County .Congestion Management--. Agency. Project Type: New freeway-expressway interchange. Project Scope: This project will construct a new:partial cloverleaf interchange on the extension of Isabel Avenue (State Route 84) and I-580. This project will be built in two phases. Initially a four-lane overcrossing will be constructed. The ultimate project would widen Isabel Avenue:and the I-580 overcrossing to six lanes. The project also includes removal of the:Portola Avenue Interchange, con- struction of a new overcrossing, and extension of Portola Avenue north of I-580 to Isabel Avenue. Need/Purpose: This project is needed to improve access between 1-580 and State Route 84, and mitigate the impacts,of local and"regional growth in housing and employment. It will reduce regional- traffic volume from local Livermore Cambridge{Systematics, Inc. A-3 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix roadways. The Tri-Valley Triangle study, completed in 2007, included this pro- ject as an important part of the proposed regional transportation network for the Tri-Valley. This project also is included in the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan , the City of Livermore General Plan, and the expenditure plan for the State's CMIA program. Current Status: The environmental assessment has been completed and certi- fied. Right-of-sway acquisition and design is underway. Construction is sched- uled to begin in 2009 and be completed by 1012. Project Funding and,Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2010) (Millions,2006) Federal $11.30 Measure B $25.10 1-580 Corridor $15.00 Dev.R/W contribution $19.30 Livermore TIF $7.30 Bike/Ped Grant $1.00, CMIA $68.00 STIP $18.00 Total $165.00 $180.00 $15.00 Project No. A-3, I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Project — Segment 2 Involved Agencies: City of San Ramon, T6wn of Danville, and Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Project Type: Freeway Project Scope: 'The I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Project Segment 2 is from the Sycamore Valley Road interchange in the Town of Danville to the Crow Canyon Road interchange in the City of San Ramon on I-680. Segment 2 will add two auxiliary lanes,one each, to both northbound and southbound direction of 1-680. Need/Purpose: Auxiliary lanes are lanes that run along the freeway from the on- ramp of one interchange to the off-ramp of the next interchange, but do not con- tinue through the interchange area. The purpose of the 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes Project is to improve the overall free- way performance and enhance motorist's safety by relieving congestion due to merging and weaving, and mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment. In addition, the project will reduce congestion by eliminating backups that occur when cars merge on and off the freeway between interchanges. Construction will reduce friction, conflicts, capacity constraints, A-4 Cambridge Systematics,Inc. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix and-congestion on the on and off ramps; reduce average,travel times (as much as 10 percent) and increase average travel speeds (as much as 4 percent) for the peak traffic period;reduce vehicle hours of delay during peak,traffic (as much as 24 percent); and reduce the duration of peak traffic periods (by as much as 20 percent): This project was identified in TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan, Measure C Strategic Plan, and the General Plans of the City of San Ramon and Town of Danville.. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shoitfall Sources=-�i (Millions,2006) (Millions;2006):' (Millions,2006) Measure-C., $17.00 Total-— $17.00 $47.00 $30.00, Current Status: Segments 1 and 3 were completed in April 2007 and provide auxiliary lanes from Diablo Road to Sycamore Valley (Danville) and Crow Canyon Road to Bollinger Canyon Road (San Ramon). Segment 2 construction will complete the entire project. Construction is expected to start in 2011 and be complete in 2013. Project No. A-4, West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station Involved Agencies: BART,City of Dublin,and City of Pleasanton. Project Type: Rail Transit. Project Scope: This project is the construction of the West Dublin-Pleasanton BART station and related transit improvements. The project is a joint public and private venture to build a station on the active BART line in the median of I-580. The related transit improvements, such as patron parking garages and kiss-ride and bus drop-offs, will be located on both the north (Dublin) and south (Pleasanton)sides of the freeway on property.owned by BART. Need/Purpose: The construction of the West Dublin=Pleasanton BART station will address existing demand within the west section of the^Tri-Valley for BART service. This project was identified in TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan,.BART'S planfor system expansion,West Dublin Specific-Plan;and,the City of Pleasanton General Plan. Current Status: This project is under construction,and"is expected to be com- pleted in 2010. Cambridge Systematics,Inc. A-5 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix Project Funding and Cost: , Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) TVTC $4.00 Other $54.00 Total $58.00 $58.00 - Project No. A-5a, I-580 HOV Lane Eastbound Involved Agencies: Caltrans, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority, City of Livermore,Cit i of Dublin,City of Pleasanton,and Alameda County. Project Type: Freeway. Project Scope: This project will construct about 10 miles of HOV lanes on I-580 from west of Hacienda Boulevard to east of Greenville Road. After it is com- pleted, this freeway segment will have a total of four mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction. The project will be completed in two stages. The first stage is eastbound. Current Status: A PSR has been completed. Environmental clearance for the eastbound project is expected by the end of 2007. Design is nearly complete. Construction is expected to begin in late 2008,and be completed in 2011. Project Funding and'Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2010) (Millions,2006) TCRP $25.00 RM2 $6.00 STIP $17.67 CMIA $72.20 SHOPP $27.00 Fed $6.00 Total $153.87 $161.87 $8.00 Need/Purpose: This.project is needed to increase overall person-trip capacity in the 1-580 corridor to Help improve safety, reduce traffic congestion, and mitigate the impacts of Local and regional growth in housing and employment. This pro - ject will reduce eastbound traffic congestion and delay, decrease travel times, reduce accident rates, encourage use of HOVs, and help attain air quality goals. This project is identified in the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan, Alameda County Transportation Plan, and the City of Livermore General Plan. The A-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix Tri-Valley Triangle study, completed-in 2007, included this project as an impor- tant part of the proposed regional transportation network for the Tri-Valley. Project No. A-5b, I-580 HOV Lane Westbound . Involved Agencies: Caltrans, Alameda. County Congestion Management Agency, Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority, City, of Livermore,City of Dublin,City of Pleasanton;and Alameda County. Project Type: Freeway. Project Scope: This project will construct about 10 miles of HOV lanes on 1.580 from west of Hacienda Boulevard to east of Greenville Road. After it is com- pleted, this freeway segment will have a total of four mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction. The HOV project will be completed in two stages. The second stage is westbound:.A direct bus-only connection from the HOV lane to Dublin-Pleasanton BART is included with the westbound project. Need/Purpose: This project is needed to increase overall person-trip capacity in the I-580 corridor to help improve safety, reduce traffic congestion, and mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment. This pro- ject will reduce westbound traffic congestion and delay, decrease travel times, reduce accident rates, encourage use of HOVs, and help attain air quality goals. This project is identified in the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan, Alameda County Transportation Plan, and the City of Livermore General Plan. The Tri-Valley Triangle study, completed in 2007, included this project as an impor- tant part of the proposed regional transportation network for the Tri-Valley. Current Status: A PSR has been completed. Environmental studies have begun. Construction is expected to begin in 2012 and be completed in 2014. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources' (Millions,-2006) . (Millions,2013) (Millions,2006) RM2 .. $34.10 CMIA . $101.70 Fed $9.60 Total $145.40 $165:40— $20.00 Project No. A-6, 1-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade Involved Agencies: Caltrans, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency,and City of Pleasanton. Project Type: Freeway. Project Scope: Construct approximately 3.5 miles of HOV lanes on I-680 from- , State Route 84 to the top of Sunol Grade. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. A-7 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix Need/Purpose:: This project is identified in the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan and the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan. The Tri-Valley Triangle study, completed in 2007, included this project as an important part of the po- posed regional transportation network for the Tri-Valley. However, the northbound project was a low priority. Current Status: Southbound interim HOV project is completed. Ultimate southbound HOV/HOT lane is under design. I Project Funding and Cost: It is anticipated that this project will be funded Iby sources other than the TVTDF. Project No. A-7, 1-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange Modificati ons Involved Agencies: City of Dublin,City of Pleasanton,and Caltrans. Project Type: Freeway/Arterial Interchange Modification, Project Scope: To enhance safety and improve traffic operation at the inter- change, the design of the existing four quadrant cloverleaf interchange will be modified, replacing the westbound and eastbound off loops with diagonal ramps. The two remaining off-ramps would be signalized at their intersections with the local street. In addition, the eastbound diagonal off-ramp will be wid- ened to two lanes, and a 700-foot eastbound auxiliary lane on I-580 will be con- structed, Need/Purpose: The project is needed to ensure adequate access to and from die West Dublin-Paeasanton BART station, and mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment. In addition, the Pleasanton side of the freeway experiences safety issues due to off-ramp traffic weaving and merging onto Foothill Road. This project is identified in the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan and in the General Plans of the City of Dublin and the City of Pleasanton. Current Status: The improvements on the north side of 1-580 (Dublin side) have been completed. The Pleasanton side to the south has not been improved. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) Total $0.00 $0.81 $0.81 i I Project No. A-8, 1-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange Involved Agencies: Caltrans and City of San Ramon. Project Type: Freeway/Arterial Interchange Modification. Project Scope: Reconstructed the southbound off ramp and added a new on- ramp at the I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange to improve operations at the i I A-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. I Tri-Valley Transportation Conned Nexus Shidy Appendix interchange. This project closed..the southbound off-ramp and built new on- and off-ramps north of Alcosta Boulevard. Need/Purpose: This project was needed to.eliminate.traffic congestion in the vicinity of the interchange, and mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment. Current Status: This project has been completed. Cost Estimates and Funding: .This project cost approximately $12 million and was funded by various sources,.including$1.6 million in TVTDF allocations. Project No. A-9a, Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 1 Involved Agencies: Alameda County. Project Type: Arterial Road Improvement. Project Scope: This safety improvement project includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, retaining wall systems, and guardrail modifications in the vicinity of Mile Marker 2.15. Need/Purpose: This project will increase safety for motorists traveling along this major arterial roadway between Castro Valley residents in Alameda County and San Ramon residents in Contra Costa County. The realignment of various curves, shoulder widening, and retaining wall sys- tems will facilitate traffic operations and reduce congestion for residents trav- eling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Roadway improvements will reduce traffic collisions and, therefore, improve traffic flow along this road- way. The modification of this tight curve (Mile Marker 2.15)will.reduce the high number of collisions,including fatalities along this congested roadway. Current Status: Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Studies. Project Funding and Cost: Sources Funding Cost. Funding Shortfall (Millions;2006)'� (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) STIP $0.50 CMA TIP $0.45 Prop 1-13 $3.00 Local Alameda County $0.60 Total $4.55 $15.50 $10.95 Project No. A-9b, Crow Canyon Road Improvements Phase 2 Involved Agencies: Alameda County. Project Type: Arterial Road Improvement. Cmnbridge Systematics,hie. _ A-9 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix Project Scope: This safety improvement project includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, retaining wall systems, two-way left turn lane as needed, and guardrail modifications. l Need/Purpose: Thus project will increase safety for motorists traveling along this major arterial roadway between Castro Valley residents in Alameda County and San Ramon residents in Contra Costa County. The realignment of various curves, shoulder widening, and retaining wall systems will facilitate traffic operations and reduce congestion for residents traveling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Roadway improvements will reduce traffic collisions and, therefore,improve traffic flow along this roadway. Current Status: Not started. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) Total $0 $32.34 $32.34 Project No. A-10a, Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 1 Involved Agencies: Alameda County. i Project Type: Arterial Road Improvement. I Project Scope: This project includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening, and installation of truck and bus climbing lanes and median barriers. As a result of a number of traffic collision fatalities that had occurred along this roadway, the installation of median barriers had been added to this project. This phase lof the project will straighten the alignment of Vasco Road at about 1.8 miles north of the Livermore city limits to about 1.6 miles south of the Alameda/Contra Costa county line. i Need/Purpose: Thus project will increase safety for motorists traveling along this roadway. The realignment of Vasco Road, shoulder widening, and barrier installations will improve traffic operations and reduce congestion for residents traveling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Roadway improve- ments will reduce traffic collisions and, therefore, improve traffic flow along thus roadway. The installation of median barriers will eliminate cross-over-type colli- sions that resulted in fatalities in the past. The realignment of tight curves will facilitate Tri-Delta bus services between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Current Status: The utility relocation phase of this project has been awarded in June 2007 and expected for completion by end of December 2007. Construction of the project will be awarded by May 2008. A-10 Can nbnidge Systematics,Inc. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sourcesvr (Millions,2006) (Milliohs;,2006) Z;' (Millions,2006) Measure B $1.50 STIP' ' $4.60 TCRP $6.50 Local Alameda County $2.81 STPICMAQ $3.90 Prop 1-13 $6.00 Fed demo $0.80 Total $26.11 $30.28 . ' $4.15 Project No. A-10b, Vasco Road Safety Improvements Phase 2 Involved Agencies: Alameda County. Project Type: Arterial Road Improvement. Project Scope: This phase of the Vasco Road project includes roadway realign- ment, shoulder widening, and installation of median barriers. This phase of the project will install median barriers along Vasco Road within Alameda County on portions of the roadway not covered by Phase 1. In addition, this phase will include shoulder widening and curve modifications,as needed. Need/Purpose: This phase of the Vasco Road project will increase safety for motorists traveling along this roadway. The realignment of Vasco Road, shoul- der widening, and barrier installations will facilitate traffic operations and reduce congestion for residents traveling between Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Roadway improvements will reduce traffic collisions and, therefore, improve traffic flow along'this roadway. Contra Costa County is working towards-the installation of median barriers in the.Contra Costa County portion of Vasco Road. This Phase II of Vasco Road will provide continuous median barrier protection between Contra Costa County and.Phase I of the Vasco Road project. The--installation of median barriers will eliminate cross-over-type collisions that resulted in fatalities in the past. Current Status: Preliminary Engineering. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources-, (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) Total,--; $0 $25.83 $25.83 Cambridge Systerna6cs,Inc. A-11 I ' I Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix Project No. A-11, Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit Involved Agencies: LAVTA, City of Livermore, City of Dublin, and City of Pleasanton. Project Type: Bus Transit. Project Scope: Develop express bus/bus rapid transit service along I-580 corri- dor. Project may be completed in stages. First stage is to develop bus rapid tran- sit along No. 10 route between Lawrence Livermore Lab and Dublin-Pleasanton BART. Future stages of express bus may be implemented after I-580 HOV lanes have been completed. Improvements include stop upgrades, passenger infor- mation systems, new rolling stock, roadway, intersection, and signalization modifications to construct queue jump lanes and provide transit priority at key intersections. i Need/Purpose: Express bus/bus rapid transit will provide the Tri-Valley with a flexible alternative to heavy rail or auto facilities. Flexibility is a benefit, allowing for changes in the access of successful employment centers. As development''in and beyond the Tri-Valley continues, congestion and commute times will grow and frustrated commuters will continue to seek out alternate ways to get;to work. Express bus/bus rapid transit can transport riders efficiently to job sites; and they can link people to fixed transit lines, such as BART and the Altamont Commuter Express. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) Measure B $0.30 FTA $4.90 STIP $2.00 Local $1.00 Total $8.20 $20.36 $12.16 i Current Status: Initial bus rapid transit improvements along the No. 10 route are expected to be completed in 201.0. i I I I �I A-12 Cambridge Systematics, hic. Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix B. Addit onal 'WTC Projects The folloNl7ing projects in Table 13.1 are being considered for Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee funding, along with the projects shown in Table A.1. The",.-Table B.1 projects were selected because.they,are important transportation--projects to help address the impacts of growth within the Tri-Valley. While...some of these projects are more sub-regional than regional.in nature (e.g. Projects B-6 and B-7, they have been included such that a local jurisdiction may elect to utilize its 20 percent local share funds (as provided for in the TVTC JEPA) to implement these projects. Project scopes, cost estimates; and status.have been developed based on the most recent data available. Table BY Projects Proposed To Be Added To Fee Program in 2007 Project Total Cost Unfunded Cost B-1 1-580/1-680 interchange(westbound to southbound) $705.00 $700.00 B-2 5th eastbound lane on 1-580 from Santa Rita to Vasco $131.30 $131.30 Road B-3 1-580/First Street interchange modification $30.30 $4.20 B4 1-580/Vasco Road interchange modification $50.50 $14.60 B-5 1-580/Greenville Road interchange modification $35.35 $7.77 B-6 Jack London Boulevard extension $27.78 $3.54 B-7 EI Charro Road Extension $18.50 $5.00 B-8 Camino Tassajara widening:East Blackhawk Drive to $49.43 $44.92 County line B-9 Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road I-680 Interchange $2.70 $2.60 Improvements B-10 1-680 SB HOV lane Gap Closure,North Main to Livoma- $55.00 $36.50 B-11a 1-680 Express Bus/HOV On-and Off-Ramps $80.00 $47.30 B-11b 1-680 Transit Corridor Improvements $100.00 $100.00 The pages below provide details about each project, including scope, benefit, cost, and funding. . Project No. B-1, 1-58017-680 Interchange (Westbound to Southbound) Involved Agencies: Caltrans, Alameda County Congestion. Management Agency,Alameda County,City of Pleasanton,and City of Dublin. Project Type: Freeway-freeway interchange improvements:- Cambridge Systematics,Inc. B-1 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix Project Scope: The project is located at the I-580/1-680 Interchange in Alameda County. The proposed project limits are from 1700 LF east of the Hacienda Drive Overcrossing (PM 18.50) to 2000 LF west of the San Ramon Road Overcrossing (PM 21.81) along 1-580, and from the Amador Valley Boulevard Undercrossing (PM 20.73) to 3400 LF south of the Stoneridge Drive Overcrossing (PM 19.94) along 1-680. Three project alternatives have been identified as follows: • Alternative 1. Provides a mixed-flow lane direct comlection from westbound I-580 to southbound I-680, and a combined westbound I-580 to southbound I-680 and northbound I-680 to eastbound 1-580 HOV lane direct coimection. Construct an express bus lane from the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to eastbound 1-580. • Alternative-2. Provides a combined mixed-flow lane and HOV lane direct connection from westbound 1-580 to southbound I-680 and a northbound I-680 to eastbound I-580 HOV lane direct coimection. Construct an express bus lane from the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to eastbound I-580. • Alternative 3. Provides a mixed-flow lane direct connection from northbound 1-680 to westbound I-580, and removes the northbound I-6801to westbound I-580 loop ramp coimection. Construct an express bus lane from the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to eastbound I-580. Alternative 3 provides a potentially fundable early phase to plarmed ultimate improve- ments to the 1-580/I-680I/C within the foreseeable future. I Need/Purpose: The purpose of the modification to the 1-580/1-680 Interchange is the following: • Improve capacity, operations, and safety on westbound I-580 between the Hacienda Drive Interchange and the I-580/1-680 interchange in the Tri-Valley area; • Meet increasing transportation demand and enhance modal interrelatiI- ships in the corridor, which is the only major transportation corridor pro- viding viding a commute route between San Francisco,Oakland,San Jose (via I-680) and the Tri-Valley (Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore), and growing CentrIal Valley areas (Tracy,Stockton,and the I-5 Corridor);and • Enhance both mixed-flow and HOV system connectivity between I-580 and I-680. Regional connectivity and people carrying capacity are very important to the movement of passengers, goods, and freight. Some local access may be removed as part of the project in need of maintaining that regional connectivity. Specifi- cally, current freeway agreements call for the elimination of Stoneridge Drive and I-580 connections due to the close proximity of the connections to die I-580/I-680 interchange. In addition, the movement of northbound and southbound I-680 to San Ramon Road/Foothill Road may be removed in I B-2 Cambridge Systematics,Mric. I Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Stud Appendix Alternative 3 in order to fit the proposed connections into existing and planned_ . constraints, including pedestrian access between the new West Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station and the adjacent parking garage. I-580 currently experiences serious congestion while carrying substantial traffic volumes through the project area during peak hours. Long-range projections indicate an increase in person trips along this freeway section associated with the. continuing development within the project corridor and in the Central Valley. Travel demands and urban growth projections indicate.that, if no improvements. are made, unacceptable levels of service will extend for longer periods of time during peak travel periods. The No-Build alternative would continue to extend the periods of unacceptable delays and congestion, as well as perpetuate existing safety issues. Project Funding and.Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) RM2 $5.00 Total $5.00 $705.00 $700.00 As traffic volumes increase,per forecasted projections, traffic issues will continue to worsen and become intolerable within the foreseeable timeframe. In addition, it is critical to reduce the number of accidents that take place in the project loca- tion due to the weaving problems associated with interchange spacing. There- fore, there is a critical need to decrease existing and projected freeway congestion by improving the people-carrying capacity, as well as meeting the increasing transportation demands of route I-580 and the I-580/I-680 interchange. Current Status: Preparation of a project study report is in progress. Project No. B-2, Fifth,Eastbound Lane on 1-580 Between Santa Rita and_Vasco Road Involved Agencies: Caltrans, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Alameda County, City of Pleasanton, City of Dublin, and City of Livermore. Project Type: Freeway Project Scope: The project would construct a fifth eastbound lane. on I-580 between Santa Rita Road and Vasco Road,eliminating the lane drop at Santa Rita. Road. This project may be constructed in stages. Completion of eastbound aux iliary lanes between Fallon Road and Vasco Road may bean initial stage. Need/Purpose: This project is needed to improve safety and reduce congestion on eastbound I-580 between I-680 and Vasco Road, and help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley. The existing main line lane drop on eastbound I-580 at Santa Rita Road is a bot Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-3 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Shady Appendix tleneck that causes significant peak-hour congestion, and results in level of ser- vice "F" conditions during the PM peak hour, with queuing that often extends back to I-680 and beyond. The Tri-Valley Triangle Study, completed in 2007, included tlus project as an important part of the proposed regional transporta- tion network for the Tri-Valley. This project will reduce regional traffic volumes from local roads in Pleasanton, Dublin,and Livermore. Current Status: The auxiliary lane components of this project between Fallon Road and Isabel Avenue and between First Street and Vasco Road are funded and will be constructed in conjunction with the I-580 eastbound HOV lane pro- ject. The cost and funding data shown below is for the remaining components. The remaining components of the project have not begun. Project Funding and Cost: i Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) Total $0.00 $131.30 $131.30 Project No. B-3, 1-580/First Street Interchange Modification Involved Agencies: City of Livermore and Caltrans. Project Type: Freeway-arterial interchange modification. Project Scope: This project will modify the I-580/First Street interchange, including widening the overcrossing to provide six lanes, and reconstructing the ramps to achieve a partial cloverleaf interchange design. The project would also construct segments of auxiliary lanes in the vicinity of the interchange. I Need/Purpose: This project is needed to reduce anticipated congestion at the I-580/First Street interchange,and help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley. This project is included in the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan and the City of Livermore General Plan. Current Status: A project study report has been completed. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) Livermore TIF $26.10 Total $26.10 $30.30 $4.20 Local funding provided through the City. of Livermore Traffic Impact Fee pr()- gram. Funding shortfall represents the proportion of project cost related to fore- casted regional traffic using the interchange. I B4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. I I i Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix Project No. B-4, I-580/Vasco Road Interchange Modification Involved Agencies: City of Livermore,Caltrans. Project Type: Freeway-arterial interchange modification. Project Scope: This project will modify the- I-580/Vasco Road interchange, including widening the overcrossing to provide eight lanes, and reconstructing the ramps to achieve a modified partial cloverleaf interchange design. The pro ject would also construct segments of auxiliary -lanes in the vicinity of the interchange: - Need/Purpose: This project is needed to reduce existing and future congestion at the I-580/Vasco Road interchange, and help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley. TI-ds project would eliminate weaving and merging required under the current design that . causes queuing on both I-580 and on Vasco Road. This project is included in the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan and the City of Livermore General Plan. Current Status: A PSR has been completed. A programmatic environmental impact report for right-of-way protection has been completed. Right-of-way. acquisition is underway. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) Livermore TIF $35.90 Total $35.90 $50.50 $14.60 Local funding provided through the City of Livermore Traffic Impact Fee pro- gram. Funding shortfall represents the proportion of project cost related to fore- cast regional traffic:using the interchange. Project No. B-5, 1-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification Involved Agencies: City of Livermore,Caltrans. Project Type: Freeway-arterial interchange modification. Project Scope: This project will modify the 1-580/Greenville Road interchange, including widening the undercrossing to provide six lanes, and reconstructing the ramps to achieve a modified partial cloverleaf interchange design. The pro- ject would also construct segments of auxiliary lanes in the vicinity of the interchange. Need/Purpose: This project is needed to reduce existing and future congestion at the,1-580/Greenville Road interchange, and help mitigate the impacts-of local and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley. This Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-5 I Tri-Valle.Transportation Council Nexus Sbidy Appendix I I project is included in the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan and the City of Livermore General Plan. li Current Status: A project study report has been completed. A programmatic environmental impact report for right-of-way protection has been completed.. Right-of-way acquisition is underway. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) Livermore TIF $27.58 Total $27.58 $35.35 $7.77 Local funding provided through the City of Livermore Traffic Impact Fee pro- gram. Funding shortfall represents the proportion of project cost related to fore- cast regional traffic using the interchange. j i I Project No. B-6, Jack London Boulevard Extension I Involved Agencies: City of Livermore. Project Type: Arterial extension. Project Scope: This project will extend Jack London Boulevard to El Charro Road as a four--lane arterial roadway. The project will be constructed in stages . The initial stage will be a two-lane extension. Future stages will relocate a por- tion of the roadway away from the Livermore Airport to its ultimate alignment on lands currently being mined for aggregate, after the quarry operations have been completed.. Need/Purpose: This project is needed to improve access to I-580 and Route 84 from the El Charro Specific Plan area, and to provide a parallel freeway reliever route south of I-580. This project will reduce congestion on I-580 between Route 84 and El Charro Road, and help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley. This project lis included in the City of Livermore General Plan. Current Status: An environmental impact report has been completed. Design and right-of-way acquisition is underway. Construction of the two-lane exten- sion is scheduled to begin in 2008 and be completed in 2009. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) Livermore TIF $24.24 Total $24.24 $27.78 $3.54 B-6 Cambridge Systematics,Inc. I X21 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix Local:funding provided through the City of Livermore Traffic Impact Fee pro-. gram. Funding shortfall represents the proportion of project cost related to forecast regional traffic using the interchange. Project No. B-7, El Charro Road Extension Involved Agencies: City of Pleasanton. Project Type: Arterial extension. Project,Scope:.This project.will extend EI Charro Road to Stanley Boulevard as a four-lane arterial roadway. Need/Purpose: The City of Pleasanton is linked to the City of Livermore by 1-580, Stanley Boulevard,-and Vineyard Avenue.- These primary east-west corri- dors have a connecting north-south corridor in State Route 84, which runs along Livermore's western boundary, but do not have a similar comtection. The pur- pose of this project would be to provide a link between 1-580 and Stanley Boulevard to allow greater movement between the east-west corridors. This project is identified in the 1996 General Plan as a necessary circulation element to maintain the safe and efficient movement of goods and services in and around the City of Pleasanton. Currently, any connection between I-580 and Stanley Boulevard must use Santa Rita Road through Pleasanton, which is very conges- tion in the peak hours. The construction of this arterial will relieve congestion along Santa Rita Road, and provide greater mobility between the two Livermore/Pleasanton east-west corulecting roadways. Current Status: This roadway currently is a private roadway that extends from Busch Road to I-580. There are development plans approved to construct the northern segment of this roadway (between 1-580 and Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard). The remaining roadway will continue to serve private access only. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost':, Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) Pleasanton TIF $13.50 Total,---. $13.50 $18:50" - $5.00 Construction of the northern segment of El Charro Road is anticipated to be con- structed in 2008 to 2009. The segment between Stoneridge Drive and Stanley Boulevard is dependent upon the construction timeline of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan developers. The East Side Specific Plan will be completed in 2008 to 2009. It is anticipated that the project will be constructed with the first stages of the East Side Specific Plan development. CambridgeSystematics,.lnc. B-7 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nmis Study Appendix Project No. B-8, Camino Tassajara Widening, East Blackhawk Drive to County Line Involved Agencies: Contra Costa County. Project Type: Arterial widening. Project Scope: This project will widen Camino Tassajara from two to four lanes from 1,500 feet east of Blackhawk Drive to Windemere Parkway; and widen Camino Tassajara from two to six lanes from Windemere Parkway to the Contra Costa/Alameda county line. Need/Purpose: This project will increase capacity on Camino Tassajara, and will help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employ- ment within the Tri-Valley. Current Status: Not started. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) SCC D.JEPA $3.97 SCC SUB-REG JEPA $0.44 Tass JEPA $0.10 Total $4.51 $49.43 $44.92 Project No. B-9, Danville Boulevard/Stone Valley Road, 1-680 Interchange Improvements Involved Agencies: Caltrans and Contra Costa County. Project Type: Freeway-Arterial interchange modification. Project Scope: Widen Stone Valley Road, including the bridge over San Ramon Creek to improve access to and from the ramps to 1-680. Signalize both northbound and southbound ramp intersections. Modify the Stone Valley Road/Danville Boulevard intersection to provide left-turn channelization west- bound to southbound and southbound to eastbound. Need/Purpose: The capacity of these intersections needs to be improved and upgraded to handle the projected traffic movements. This project will increase capacity and provide enhanced traffic circulation. This project will help mitigate the impacts of Deal and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley. Current Status: Not started. B-8 Cambridge Systematics,Inc: Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study Appendix Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) Local $0.40 Total $0.10 $2.70 $2.60:"' Project No. B-10, 1-680 SB HOV Lanes, North-Main to Livorna Involved Agencies: Caltrans and Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Project Type: Freeway, Project Scope: Close the HOV lane gap along I=680 between-North Main Street and Livorna Road in the southbound direction. Need/Purpose: Closing this gap will provide a continuous HOV lane from the Benicia-Martinez Bridge to the Contra Costa/Alameda County line. Project is necessary to encourage carpooling and provide the necessary infrastructure for express buses in the corridor. Current Status: A PSR is currently being completed by Caltrans. Construction is planned for 2010 to 2012 timeframe. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) RM2 $14.00 Measure J $4.50 Total $18.50 $55.00 $36.50 Project No. -Ila, I-680/Norris Canyon Express Bus/Carpool On- and Off-Ramps Involved,Agencies: City.of San Ramon and Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Project Type: Freeway/Trahsit. Project Scope: The project is one component of a multiple plamled I-680 corridor improvements. The project will improve transit/carpool/vanpool accessibility to existing transit center located in the San Ramon Valley. The project will con- struct HOV/express bus on-and off-ramps at Norris Canyon Road. Need/Purpose: The .HOV project will deliver the following needed improve- ments to help mitigate,the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-9 Tri-Valley Transportation Comicil Nexus Study Appendix • Improved access for express bus service, carpools, and vanpools traveling to and from the San Ramon Valley; • Improve accessibility to regional transit network; • Provide linkage to adjoining HOV lanes; • .Flexibility to service out-of-corridor locations; and • Reduce traffic conflicts by decreasing the amount of weaving by HOVs entering or exiting the freeway. Current Status: A project study report is underway and is expected to be com- pleted by July 2008. Construction is expected to begin in 2013. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) Measure J $32.70 Total $32.70 $80.00 $47.30 Project No. B-1 1b, 1-680 Transit Corridor Improvements Involved Agencies: City of San Ramon,Town of Danville,Contra Costa County, Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, and Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Project Type: Freeway/Transit. Project Scope: The project will provide improvements to address congestion and/or increase people throughput along the I-680 corridor. Improvements could include additional express bus service on I-680, necessary infrastructure to encourage use of transit and reduce transit travel time, and expansion of park- and-ride lots. Need/Purpose: The project will help mitigate the impacts of local and regional growth in housing and employment within the Tri-Valley by providing an Alter- native mode of transportation; improved access for express bus service,carpools, and vanpools traveling to and from the San Ramon Valley; and improved acces- sibility to regional transit network. Current Status: Not started. Project Funding and Cost: Funding Cost Funding Shortfall Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) Total 0 $100.00 $100.00 B-10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. DETERMINATION THAT AN ACTIVITY IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FILE NO.: 0676-6P4032 CP NO.: 08-45 ACTIVITY NAME: Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF) Area of Benefit Update DATE: August 6, 2008 Exhibit C PREPARED BY: Trina R. Torres This activity is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3)of the CEQA Guidelines. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITY: In 1991, Contra Costa County entered into a Joint Powers Exercise Agreement(JEPA)with Alameda County, the cities of Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, establishing the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC). In 1998, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance (98-35)to collect transportation fees from the TVTC. In 2003, the ordinance was amended to revise the fee schedule. The Tri-Valley Transportation area has experienced growth in the area's traffic circulation needs, development potential, and project list. The TVTC has determined that additional funds are necessary for the MDF program, in support of new and future regional transportation growth, as noted in the TVTC Nexus Study— Fee Update (January 2008). The purpose of this activity is to: 1) implement the MDF ordinances which consist of adjusting the traffic mitigation fee program to accommodate new and future development in the Tri-Valley Area,and 2) adjust the traffic mitigation fee program, as necessary. Fees will be collected from new development within the mitigation fee area (Figure 1). All of the roadways proposed for improvement under this program are contained in or are in the process of being incorporated into the circulation element of each City's and/or County's general plan and regional planning documents for the fee area. Each project funded either wholly or in part by this fee will be analyzed under a project-specific CEQA document. LOCATION: The activity is located in the area between Alamo and San Ramon in southern portion of Contra Costa County, as well as portions of Alameda County. REVIEWED BY4DATE: D 1- D Lei h Chavez En ironmental An t III APPROVED BY: � �„ DATE: sr- M-04W Dept. of Conservation and Development Representative TT: G:\EngSvc\ENVIRO\TransEng\MDF(Tri-Valley)Fee Update\CEQA\DE.docx CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Notice of Exemption CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 651 PINE STREET 2ND FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 Telephone: (925) 313-2176 Contact Person: Trina Torres - Public Works Dept. Project Description, Common Name (if any) and Location: Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF) Area of Benefit Update, Project No. 0676-6P4032, County File #CP08-45 Project Description: In 1991,Contra Costa County entered into a Joint Powers Exercise Agreement(JEPA)with Alameda County, the cities of Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, establishing the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC). In 1998, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance (98-35)to collect transportation fees from the TVTC. In 2003, the ordinance was amended to revise the fee schedule. The Tri-Valley Transportation area has experienced growth in the area's traffic circulation needs, development potential, and project list. The NTC has determined that additional funds are necessary for the MDF program, in support of new and future regional transportation growth, as noted in the TVTC Nexus Study—Fee Update(January 2008). The purpose of this activity is to: 1)implement the TVTDF ordinances which consist of adjusting the traffic mitigation fee program to accommodate new and future development in the Tri-Valley Area,and 2)adjust the traffic mitigation fee program, as necessary. Fees will be collected from new development within the mitigation fee area (Figure 1). All of the roadways proposed for improvement under this program are contained in or are in the process of being incorporated into the circulation element of each City's and/or County's general plan and regional planning documents for the fee area. Each project funded either wholly or in part by this fee will be analyzed under a project- specific CEQA document. LOCATION: The activity is located in the area between Alamo and San Ramon in southern portion of Contra Costa County, as well as portions of Alameda County. This activity is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines, as a: ❑ Ministerial Project Sec. 15268 ❑ Categorical Exemption, Class ❑ Declared Emergency(Sec. 15269(a)) ❑ Other Statutory Exemption, Section ❑ Emergency Project(Sec. 15269(b)or(c)) ® General Rule of Applicability/Section 15061 (h) (3)/ for the following reason(s): It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. Date: By: AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. Signature Title Applicant: Department of Fish and Game Fees Due Public Works Department ❑ EIR-$2,606. 00 255 Glacier Drive E] Neg. Dec. -$1876.75 Total Due: $75. Martinez, CA 94553 , Total Paid $ Attn:Trina Torres ®County Clerk-$50 Receipt#: Environmental Section ® Department of Conservation and Development-$25' !_4Cnnc„n\CAI\/I{7n\Tronc Cnn\T�/Tr1F lTri_\/ollcvl Foo i i.,+�+o�rGne�AinG a.,..� CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Notice of Exemption CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 651 PINE STREET 2ND FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 Telephone: (925) 313-2176 Contact Person: Trina Torres - Public Works Dept. Project Description, Common Name (if any) and Location: Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF) Area of Benefit Update, Project No. 0676-6P4032, County File #CP08-45 Project Description: In 1991, Contra Costa County entered into a Joint Powers Exercise Agreement(JEPA)with Alameda County, the cities of Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore, San Ramon, and the Town of Danville, establishing the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (NTC). In 1998, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance (98-35)to collect transportation fees from the TVTC. In 2003,the ordinance was amended to revise the fee schedule. The Tri-Valley Transportation area has experienced growth in the area's traffic circulation needs, development potential, and project list. The TVTC has determined that additional funds are necessary for the MDF program, in support of new and future regional transportation growth,as noted in the TVTC Nexus Study—Fee Update(January 2008). The purpose of this activity is to: 1)implement the MDF ordinances which consist of adjusting the traffic mitigation fee program to accommodate new and future development in the Tri-Valley Area,and 2)adjust the traffic mitigation fee program, as necessary. Fees will be collected from new development within the mitigation fee area (Figure 1). All of the roadways proposed for improvement under this program are contained in or are in the process of being incorporated into the circulation element of each City's and/or County's general plan and regional planning documents for the fee area. Each project funded either wholly or in part by this fee will be analyzed under a project- specific CEQA document. LOCATION: The activity is located in the area between Alamo and San Ramon in southern portion of Contra Costa County, as well as portions of Alameda County. This activity Is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines as a: ❑ Ministerial Project Sec. 15268 ❑ Categorical Exemption, Class ❑ Declared Emergency (Sec. 15269(a)) ❑ Other Statutory Exemption, Section ❑ Emergency Project(Sec. 15269(b)or(c)) ® General Rule of Applicability/Section 15061 (h) (3)/ for the following reason(s): It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. Date: By: AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. Signature Title Applicant: Department of Fish and Game Fees Due Public Works Department ❑ EIR-$2,606. 255 Glacier Drive 75 Total Due: $75,00 Martinez, CA 94553 ❑ Neg. Dec. -$1,876. Total Paid $ Attn:Trina Torres ® County Clerk-$50 Receipt#: Environmental Section ® Department of Conservation and Development-$25 G:\EngSvc\ENVIRO\TransEng\MDF (Tri-Valley) Fee Update\CEQA\NOE.docx A Map of Contra Costa County showing MD Fee area � oUV U WLi-� � O � � lr-J � OVUV � U TVTD FEE AREA OF BENEFIT RODEO/04C KET MA TINE PITTSBURG PINOLE 10 H SAN EL SOBRANTE PABL •CONCORD a OAKLE RICHMON PLEASANT, EL HILL BRENTWOO • C RRITO� * CLAYTON •WALNUT CREEK ORINDALAF T MORACA I dill kill lCr[-Gv.n im*so mea wow -0- ft Gh .f iso flw�w. Mr TYTO FEE AREA r•'"`° "�° LOCATION MAP 7CIJuv, � Contra Costa Times Legal No. 0002962861 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS P 0 Box 4147 DEPARTMENT 255 Glacier Drive Martinez,CA 94553 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925)935-2525 NOEARINGANDTICE OF ZZ REARING ANDA rdinanLRY OF DATA(Ordinance for the TrFValley Program)ntFee The Board of Supervi-sors will hold a public Clerk of the Board of Supervisors hearing on October 2%June-Rm 106,651 Pine St., 1st Fl. BoarrdaChambe s, cone CLERKIngAd661'arPati n Buil, CMartinez CA 94553-1275 Martinez cA.to consid- er Ordinance 2008-27 for the Trl-Valley Transpor- tation OF PUBLICATION (TVTD Deve) Pro Fee (TVTD Fee) Program Area. Fees collected through FILE NO. 2183 ca��Tri-Valleynil rans TCr� will be collected coni from new development In the matter of ��nco orated Contra Costa County and will be collected upon the Is- of a building permit. The MD Fee Program Is the result of a Joint Exercise of Powers I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the Count Agreement between the County Cities of San Ramon, aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or Dublin, Pleasanton, o interested in the above-entitled matter. Danville, the County of Alameda,and the Coun- Vf Contra Costa. The C will surfort the I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times, a list of regional im rove- ments described in the newspaper of general circulation, printed and published at 2640 TVTD Fee Area of Benefit Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek, County of Contra Pro9 a Report).opment Costa, 94598 The proposed fees for approval by the Board of Supervisors are: And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general Land Use Proposed Fee circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Contra Costa, Single-Family Residential W75 per State of California, under the date of October 22, 1934. Case dwelling unit Number 19764. Multi-Famllyy Residentia 52,945 per tlwelling unit RetalVCommerclal $3.40 The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in type not ger square foot of gross oor area small than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire office E17 er square issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the foot of Industrial r?9a 423 per$Sper following dates,to-Wit: square foot of gross 10/10/2008, 10/17/2008, 10/24/2008 floor area Other $4,750 per peak hour trip Affordable Housing$ 0 per dwelling unit -The fees for uses not listed above shall be de- termined by the sponsor collecting the fee ac- cording to Information generated by appropri- ate traffic studdies. or other means of deter- mining traffic imppacts as approved by 4Ma or In accordance with the Institute of Traffic Engl- neers(ITE)Manual. In addition, an adminis- tration fee equal to 2 percent of the Program revenue shall be as- sessed. As with most fee pro- grams, the fee revenue from the TVTD Fee pro- gram will not pay the cost of all regional Im- provements. Other funding must be gener- ated, some of which in- clude fees generated from Measure C and I certify(or declare) under the penalty of perjury rtation Im- poet!rvmenf )Funds. that the foregoing is true and correct. The Development Pro- gram Report, which In- cludes adescription of Executed at Walnut Creek, California. the proposed im rove- ment cost estimates On this 24 day of Octobe 2008 and funding mechanism, will be available at the Clerk of the Board. For more information contact Jenna Caldwelof l Signature Works County eartment Transportation Engi- neering Division at 313- 2020. BY: EMpY LtySHARP CCT#29fit881 Def.10.17.24 71108 "CCT Legals" To "Kathy Sinclair"<KSinc@cob.cccounty.us> <cctlegals@bayareanewsgro up.com> cc 10/31/2008 12:35 PM bcc Subject RE: Legal Publication Ref.2190 all set ad#2989487 Legal Advertising Contra Costa Times -Concord Transcript- Lamorinda SUN Bay Area News Group- East Bay Ph: 925-943-8019 Fx: 925-952-5019 From: Kathy Sinclair [mailto:KSinc@cob.cccounty.us] Sent: Fri 10/31/08 11:31 AM To: CCT Legals Subject: RE: Legal Publication Ref. 2190 Hello Aris, Here are the documents put together. Nice to meet you. Katherine Sinclair Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 925-335-1902 (See attached file: 4060.pdf) "CCT Legals"<cctlegals@bayareanewsgroup.com> 10/31/2008 10:42 AM To "Kathy Sinclair"<KSinc@cob.cccounty.us> cc Subject RE: Legal Publication Ref.2190