HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10282008 - SD.3 ti-sE--L
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra S � • �{'
FROM: JULIA R. BUEREN PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Costa
DATE: OCTOBER 28, 2008 ------ County
s a coon
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-�
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 OFIBOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
r<
SIGNATURE(S): �/-� � j^ /� f//(J�Q�
ACTION OF BOARD ON QC Vl%� 201 /iW0 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED V, 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: Jcnna Caldwell 925-313-2020
C It
J dc-gl �
\\ c-glacier\grpdata\TransEng\AOB\TNTC\Tri-Valley Transportation Council Fee ATTESTED WOW I
Update\Public Hearing\BO-TVTD Fee Public Hearing 2008-10-
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 TE 1
M.Halle,Public Works TE �/,/��
C.Raynolds,Public Works Finance BY: YMl` 'DEPUTY
T.Torres,Public Works Engineering Services
C.Kutsuris,Department of Conservation and Development
J.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: 0676-61`4032
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 1 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.
IS
.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: 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
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
N
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: 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 ro'ect 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(I580-I680) $ 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 1-580 HOV Lane Eastbound $161.87 $8.00
A-5b I-580 HOV Lane Westbound $165.40 $20.00
A-6 I-680 HOV Lane (Route 84 to Top of Sunol Grade) -COMPLETE- -COMPLETE-
A-7 I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange $0.81 $0.81
A-8 I-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 $25.83
A-11 * Express Bus/Bus Rapid
. Tra..n.s,it . .�t
t$lr,2. 0,.F3I
6+ . $12.16
: es § ,l s
Total $1,008.93 $389.34
With 10% reduction to account for some degree of uncertainty $350.41
(per Nexus Stud
*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 1h 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 I-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
B-7 El Charro Road Extension $18.50 $5.00
B-8 Camino Tassajara Widening(east Blackhawk Drive to $49.43 $44.92
Count line)
B-10 1-680 southbound HOV lane gap closure(Livonia 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-1 lb
L* 1-680 Transit Corridor Improvements . $100.00 $100.00
Y 3 ry wW y+ v M*w Y tai! Y
it fa t N �7 F k+rve, 3 ' z„#
� r ,..:,a s� ,., x ...{., ei�(,�S�h. fftW
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
111) [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 $ 21262 /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
III) [CDD-CP #08-45]
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
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.
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 (7VTD") 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" ("JEPA") 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
(7VTD 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 ]EPA.
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 JEPA 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
TVTD Fee program.
State law allows the jurisdictions participating in the TVTD 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 MD 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 MD Fee Area within
Contra Costa County is given in Exhibit D. The MD Fee imposed by the County will be .
collected only within the TVTD Fee AOB.
3
NEXUS FINDINGS (GOV. CODE, F 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 TVTD 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") Tri
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
MC 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 MD 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
8
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 Plana 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 square feet
Office 13,745,700 square feet
Industrial 12,808,800 square 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 TVTD 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
11
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
MD 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 Develo ment
F TVTD Fee Cost Per Peak D/E=F $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 38,682 DU 0.90 34,814 35.4 $12r238 / DU
Multi-Family 19,083 DU 0.62 11,831 12.0 $8f430 / DU
Commercial/Retail 61060.5 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 91229.8 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)
TVTC Projects . FORMULA TVTD 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
TVTD 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 TVTD 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 38,682 DU 0.90 34,814 35.4 $12,216 / DU
Multi-Family 19,083 DU 0.62 11,831 12.0 $8,416 / 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 $12f081 / KSF
Other 9,229.8 KSF 1.0 9 230 9.4 $13,574 / PHT
Total --- --- 98,427 100 ---
PROGRAM FINANCE CONSIDERATIONS
RECOMMENDED FEES
Based on action by the TVTC 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 $ 1F295 / 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 $ 31053 / DU
Multi-Family $21104 / DU
Commercial / Retail $ 31400 / KSF
Office $ 5,191 / KSF
Industrial $ 31020 / KSF
Other $ 31393 / 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 $ 31400 / KSF
Office $ 71267 / KSF
Industrial $ 41227 / KSF
Other $ 41750 / PHT
OTHER FUNDING OURCES
The planned improvements are only partially funded by the TVTD Fee. The rate of
revenuegenerated 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 TVTD Fee or reimbursement. The eligible credit and/or
reimbursement will be determined in accordance with the County's "Traffic Fee Credit
and Reimbursement Policy".
]RC:jrc
G:\TransEng\AOB\MC\Tri-Valley Transportation Council Fee Update\DPR Update\Development Program Report(tvtdl)_2008-10.doc
16
EXHIBIT A
Tri-Valley Development Area Boundary
AlAMO
AWLU "'°°urn`
COO""
SAN N 7ASSNARA (pY
t�
OUDUN
M Gip
ON UY£RMOR£
,ASRI'i
S
N
U0M Q7Y 1. .
iaMowr
•MMYAI�rds Cart;wrdweel■rs w
giuiwr trei w.��Mp•r Xot iW wa ac4Wr.
17
EXHIBIT B
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit
COMMA 00 .87A c0uH7 U
TVTD FEE AREA
RODEU CR KETT
MA TINE PITTSBURG
PINOLE O -AN 10 H
SAN £L SOBRANTE
PABL .CONCORD c OAKLE
RICHMON � PLEASANT.
Ey HILL BRENTWOO
'CERRITO� 'CLAYTON
•WALNUT CREEK
ORINDALAF T
MORAGA
Ilig q
IIIII II���I
NOTE,E.muaee ihCMWatee mem .ithh
the City at im R,m 6n mtt the
TVTD FEE AREA Tae„of Omn'Oe
LOCATION MAP
]8
EXHIBIT C
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Area of Benefit
(showing adjacent communities and cities)
o A MO
YLl ST E A(
V
�� £Y RD
DIA O
844
t
�o
BLACKHAWK
t.,
9l _
`9 r
TASrRIND.
DANVOAZ
CO `t wmma
GyA
m
WJ=C1r 0 w. loco«.ftm
Gp�1Nr ,�a iT�rPEc m By TM n
TVTD 'FEE AREA =— - ---
oobvito_ee.agn
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 19028'45" 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 0015'16" west 1,303.04 feet, 3) north 88°43'10" east 1,290.34 feet, and 4) north
0027'37" 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 88043'05" 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 76018'50" west 481.39 feet, 3) north 84°17' 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 84°47'44" 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 89012'12" 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 89°12'36" 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 64016'18"
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
63°37'38" west 44.33 feet, 2) south 23°15'36" east 359.22 feet, 3) north 64°03'39" east 14.72
feet, 4) south 23015'36" east 144.57 feet, 5) south 45021'24" west 36.15 feet, 6) south 55°15'24"
west 108.21 feet, 7) south 32°31'24" west 152.34 feet, 8) south 12°04'24" 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 53047'20" 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 89043'18" 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 72°23'20" east 272.09 feet, 2) north 1036'23"
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 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 55°22'55" 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 1'32'10" 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
1'32'10" 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 1°44'25"
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 21053'15" west 3,423.26 feet, north 73016'01" 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 76053'13" 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 87°52'06" 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 (T1S, R1E), easterly 10,560 feet, more or
less, to the northeast corner of Section 26 (T1S, 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 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)
ID Project Total Cost Total TVTD Fee
I: Share
Existing MC 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
13-1 I-580/I-680 Interchange $705.00 $630.00
westbound to southbound
B-2 5theastbound lane on I-580 $131.30 $118.17
from Santa Rita Road to Vasco
Road
13-3 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 $1,235.08
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
i
prepared for
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
prepared by
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
with
Dowling Associates, Inc.
Adopted January 30,2008
Amended February 26,2008
January 2008 www.camsys.com
final report
Tri-Valley Transportation Council
Nexus Study
Fee Update
preparedfor
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 Conncil Nexus Study
Table 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
Cantbridge Systematics,Inc. i
7647.001
t
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 3.11ravel Demand from New Development Average AM/PM Peak Hour Trip Ends, 2007 tc
Figure 5.1Tri-Valley Average Change in Congestion from 2005 to 2030 Change in Vehicle Hours c
Cambridge Systematics,Inc. v
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 AMIPM ^.
Peak Hour Trips 1p
350.000 ......................................_..........._............•..._. .............. _...,....._.... ._...........
321,784
300.000............................................................,, . . . .....................................
98,427
A44%
250,000 .. 5....... .......,._........................ _ --------
223,357
A k.
200,000 ..,._.,..... 'y ,.:. _____
b. l
M{
I S
c y
k
100,000 ..,._.,.... ...................,.—.,.... ............ .... ...................
s
b d
.,.,.,.____.,............. .,_................... ..............
50,000 .,.....,.,.,_
*
x
� E•
0
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 c.
' 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 Flours of Delay Excluding Through Trips*
Vehicle Hours
of Delay(VHD)
45,000-._ _.____-__ ________ _.______ ___._._.__._. _____.__._. ___ __ _ _______. _._.__._.__.__
Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour
40,058
40,000--- ....-..-_.-------sv,"5-----------------------------------------
35,000------------------- ______
32,890 ._._.______ ____._.________..__ ------------------
31,062
_____ _._.______
31,062
30,000------------------- ....._.__ -__.___._.__......_._._._ _
25,000 __.___._._.____-______ __ -------------------------------
20.000
_______________________-__
20,000------------------- __.-.-... _..__._.---._....,.
--------------
15,000------------------- __ ______._.______________._._.__.______
10,000------------------- .,_,....,. ...,......._..........
5,0001----- 5,092 4,505
5,000_____ .___________._._._._.__.___________._
1 F7
0
2005AM 2030 no 203Ovith 2005PM 2030 no 2030 with
Project AM ProjectAM Project PM Prej ect PM
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;lot 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.
This 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 Nesns 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.iw 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 developmenty over the next-,23 years (2007-t6 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•�-
statu tory,findings under California's,Mi tigation,Fee Act._,,
Cambridge Systematics,Inc. 2-1
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nextis 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 Improvement 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 performance 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 Systematics,Inc.
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 funds is implemented through the'CCTA's Transportation Sales Tax
Expenditure Plan (TEP).
z 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,
ii
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study
30- Forecast of New Development--
and ravel Demand
This section consists of two subsectionsa -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 from new development is deter-
mined from the land use forecasts.
3.1 'd" 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 (705) 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 : r
2007! 2030 '.. Growth 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
Cambridge Systematics,Inc. 3-1 .
Tri-Valley Transportation Council 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 Iand 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.
3 The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density,Study Summary Report, prepared for
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), October 31, 2001. The
density factors were derived from a random sample of 2,721 parcels drawn from across
five counties (Los 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 EmploymentGrowth.to S46are Feet of . .'
Commercial Building Space
2007 to 2030
Employee Growth Employee Density Building Square Feet
Land Use 2007.2030 (Square FeetlEmployee) 2007.2030
Retail 12,121 500 6,060,500
Office/services i 45,819 1 300 13,745,700
Industrial* 14,232 a 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 residentialr_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.PM 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.
Canihndge 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*
Residential(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 1.0 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).
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 AMIPM
Peak Hour Tri ps
350,000...................................................... ........................................................................................................---............--.............
321,784
300,000................ ...............................................................................................
98,427
044%
250,000...._.............................................................................................................................
..._.1...
...................
.....
223,357
200,000........................................... ...............
.....................................................
150,000........................................... ...........................................................
100,000........................................... ...........................................................
.....................................................
50,000.......................................... ...........................................................
.....................................................
0
2007 2030
Cambridge Systematics,Inc. 3-5
r
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study
40 Improvement Proj ects
and Cost Estimates--
This section identifies the 22 projects that the�TVTC has elected to receive
funding from!the Tri-Valley Transportation Development:Fee..The first 11 are pro-
jects that were included in the original program.adopted'in 1995 (Appendix A).
The second set of 11 is new projects that are beingin included in this update
(Appendix B).
4,1.1" PROJECTSELECTION
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 1 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 iplaruling, 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 a
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 ,
Tri-Valley-Transportation Council Nexus Study
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 1-680 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 V 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-2b 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.
A-4 West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station — — Under construction.
A-5a 1-580 HOV Lane Eastbound $161.87 $8.00 Project split into
A-51b 1-580 HOV Lane Westbound $165.40 $20.00 Phases. Project study
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 I-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
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 1-580/1-680 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 I-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 Charr6 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 Nexus Study
5.0 New's'-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 ilto 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 feebased on the:list 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 r:
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. __v- 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 responsible
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. This
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(a)(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 Regional 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 pro-
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.
J
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study
Table 5.1 Projected Increase,in Congestion Related to New Development*.-,
Vehicle Hours of Delay, 2007 to 2030
2007 = Change
Current 2030 20072030
AM peak 5,092 • 38,715 660%
PM peak 4,505 40,058 789%
Through traffic(external-external trips)was removed and 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
improvementyplan, 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 spending.fee 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 administration 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.
I
Cambridge Systematics,Inc. 5-3
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study
Benefit Relationship
For the third finding, 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 transporta-
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 sce-
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 be
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,Inca
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 geographdc 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 4rom 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
demonstratesi 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.
Cambridge Systematics,Inc. 5-5
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study
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. ... . .. ....... ...... _........ ....._..... ..... ........... .........._................... ........................... ... ........
Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour
40,058
40,000......... 38,715.........................._...__..................._.............................................................................._..._.__. .................................
35,000
35,000......... ..... ....................... ......... . _......... ............. . .. . ....... .............
................ .... ...........
32,890
31,062
30,000......._. .........__..........._. _..... .......... ......
25,000 ................ ...... .......................,............................................................,..........
20,000............._.........._.............__.............. ....... ............._..................................,........_.
15000.........._
..............
10,000
....... .......
10,000.... ..._.......... _..... ............_..._......................................................................_.....
5,092 4 505
5,000. _._.. ..... ....... .......,....._....._.................
0
2005AM 2030 no 2030with 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 new 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 transportation
improvements needed to accommodate growth. As additional dwelling units
and building square footage are created, the occupants of these structures gener-
ate additional vehicle trips and place additional burdens on the transportation
system.
f
5-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council 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•1on 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
f.
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
i
Other(1,000 sq ft) 1.00 0% 1.00
Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.,with data from the ITE Traffic Generator Manual and Minnesota JW
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 relationsNp_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 Fee
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 development is
expected to cover to mitigate future congestion.
2. Forecast peak-hour trips generated by new development per type of land use
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 fee 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 Cambridge Systematics,Inc.
l
h�!
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Neaps Study II
Where:O.62 is the average of AM-and;-PM peak-hour tripsgenerated 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 thesecalculations for each of the six lands 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 la and PM peak-hour trip-ends, per ,square foot. The `other",
commercial land use applies a rateaof 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 to11 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.•;.
*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 obligate&to apply,-this 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 j.
adjustment may be applied to the maximum fee schedule shown in Table 5.4:
5.4 NEXT STEPS
This nexus report documents.the,tecluical findings needed to adopt a fee sched-)s,-
ule to fund the projects listed in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. The next step will be for the
Cambridge Systematics,Inc. 5-9
Tri-Valley Transportation Connell 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 teclwiques.
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 Ao 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 Pr"' oj ects .
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-2b 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
A-4 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
r
A-8 1-680/Alcosta Interchange,—.. — — Project complete ..
A-9a Crow Canyon Road $15.50 $10.95 Project split into phases r
Improvements Phase 1
A-9b Crow Canyon Road $32.34at $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
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study
Appendix
Project No. A-1, 1-580/1-680 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 I-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 1-680 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 project
also will improve access to regional routes for portions,of Livermore and
Pleasanton. The existing two-lane roadway between Livermore and I-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 IocaI 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-Airway i 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 84/1-680
interchange, and construction of a southbound ,auxiliary lane on I-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, and- .Alameda . County -.Congestion Management
Agency.
Project Type: New freeway-expressway interchange.
Project Scope: This project will constructs 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 I-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-way 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, 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes Project — Segment 2
Involved Agencies: City of San Ramon, Town 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 I-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 I-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 peakctraffic (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 Shortfall
Sourcesg (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 D6blin.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
i
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,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 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: TI-ds 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 eastbound traffic congestion and delay, decrease travel times,
reduce accident rates, encourage use of HOVs, and help attain air quality goals.
TI-ds 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, 1-580 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 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
HOVlane.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, AIameda
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"'.s, (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 Panes on 1=680•from-fi
State Route 84 to the top of Sunol Grade.
Cambridge Systeniatics,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 pro-
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.
Project Funding and Cost: It is anticipated that this project will be funded by
sources other than the TVTDF.
Project No. A-7, I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications
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 the
West Dublin-Pleasanton 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 I-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
Project No. A-8, I-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
A-8 Cambridge Systematics,Inc.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study M
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-X. Funding Shortfall "
(Millions;2006)'"'� (Millidns,•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.
Cambridge Systematics,Inc. 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.
NeedfPurpose: 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 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:
i 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.
Project Type: Arterial Road Improvement.
Project Scope: This project includes roadway realignment, shoulder widening,
nd installation of truck and bus climbing lanes and median barriers. As a result
I
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 of
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.
Need/Purpose: This 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 this
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 Cambridge Systematics,Inc.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Stud
Appendix
Project Funding and Cost:
Funding Cost Funding Shortfall
Sourcesrr (Millions,2006) (Milli6ns;r2006),i�j (Millions,2006)
Measure B $1.50
STIP' ' $4.60
TCRP $6.50
Local Alameda Gounty $2.81
STP/CMAQ $3.90
Prop-1-13 $6.00
Fed demo=.7c $0.80
Total::_ $26.11 $30.16 $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 alongthis 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;Lof 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)x:`= (Millions,1006)
Total,-_t, $0 $25.83 $25.83
e
CamInid e S
gystematics,lnc. A-ll
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Shady
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 trap-
sit along No. 10 route between Lawrence Livermore Lab and Dublin-Pleasanton
BART. Future stages of express bus may be implemented after 1-580 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.
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
Current Status: Initial bus rapid transit improvements along the No. 10 route are
expected to be completed in 2010.
A-12 Cambridge Systematics,Inc.
l
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study
Appendix
B. Add �tonal �TVTCProj�ects�a:1,
The -•following; projects in Table 13.1 are being considered fon,Tri-Valley
Transportation,Development Fee funding, along with the:projects shown in
Table A.1. Th&r.Table 13.1 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 B.V" 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
B-4 1-580Nasco 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 El 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 1-680 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, 1-580/1-680 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 I-580, and from the Amador Valley Boulevard Undercrossing
(PM 20.73) to 3400 LF south of the Stoneridge Drive Overcrossing (PM 19.94)
along I-680.
Three project alternatives have been identified as follows:
• Alternative 1. Provides a mixed-flow lane direct connection from westbound
I-580 to southbound 1-680, and a combined westbound 1-580 to southbound
1-680 and northbound I-680 to eastbound 1-580 HOV lane direct comlection.
Construct an express bus lane from the East Dublin/Pleasanton BART station
to eastbound I-580.
• Alternative 2. Provides a combined mixed-flow lane and HOV lane direct
connection from westbound I-580 to southbound I-680 and a northbound
I-680 to eastbound 1-580 HOV lane direct connection. 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 I-680 to westbound I-580, and removes the northbound I-680 to
westbound I-580 loop ramp connection. 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 planned ultimate improve-
ments to the I-580/1-680 I/C within the foreseeable future.
Need/Purpose: The purpose of the modification to the I-580/I-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 interrelation-
ships in the corridor, which is the only major transportation corridor pro-
viding a commute route between San Francisco, Oakland,San Jose (via I-680)
and the Tri-Valley (Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore), and growing Central
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 cormectivity 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 the
1-580/1-680 interchange. In addition, the movement of northbound and
southbound 1-680 to San Ramon Road/Foothill Road may be removed in
B-2 Cambridge Systematics,Inc.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study
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 I-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 1-580-
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 Study
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 this 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:
Funding Cost Funding Shortfall
Sources (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,2006)
Total $0.00 $131.30 $131.30
Project No. B-3, I-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.
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 pro-
gram. Funding shortfall represents the proportion of project cost related to fore-
casted regional traffic using the interchange.
B-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
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 withiri.the Tri-Valley. This 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, I-580/Greenville Road Interchange Modification
Involved Agencies: City of Livermore,Caltrans.
Project Type: Freeway-arterial interchange modification.
Project Scope: This project will modify the I-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,I-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
Tri-Valley,Transportation Council Nexus Study
Appendix
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. 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.
l
Project No. B-6, Jack London Boulevard Extension
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 1-580. This project will reduce congestion on 1-580 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 is
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.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus Study
Appendix
Local 4unding 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.
Pr6'ject,Typer Arterial extension.
Project'Scope:-:This.project will extend El Charro Road to Stanley Boulevard as a
four-lane arterial roadway.
Need/Pu'rpose: The City of Pleasanton is linked to the•City of Livermore by
I-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 connection. 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. TI-ds
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 1-580 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 conriecting 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 I-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) (Milli6ns,'2006)1 ' (Millions,2006)
Pleasanton TIF $13.50
Total ca,. $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.
Cambridge Systenu tics,.lnc. B-7
Tri-Valley Transportation Council Nexus 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, I-680 Interchange
Improvements I
,
-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 I-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 local 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 Fundirig:and Cost:
Funding Cost Funding Shortfall
Sources .:• (Millions;2006) (Millions,2006) (Millions,'2006).:-
Local $0:10
Total $0.10 $2.70 $2.60,4'
Project No.:B-10, I-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 alon&J-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. -11a, 1-680/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 planned 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 Council 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-11 b, 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 1-680 corridor. Improvements
could include additional express bus service on 1-680, 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.
r "
r
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 Exhibit
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 TVTDF 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.
REVIEWED BY- XJ DATE: OAD IJ D
Lei h Chavez
En iro mental An t III
APPROVED BY: ws � DATE: 9-- N-09
Dept. of Conservation and Development Representative
TT:
G:\EngSvc\ENVIR0\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 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 NTC 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.
75 Total Due: $75.00
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553 El Neg. Dec.-$1,876. Total Paid $
Attn: Trina Torres ®County Clerk-$50 Receipt#:
Environmental Section ® Department of Conservation and Development-$25'
�_'•ICnnCvnICA1\/IAnlTroncCnn\Tl/TrIG/Tri_1/nllcvl Foo i ir��+o�r^Gne�ninG .+.,�..
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 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 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 sub'ect 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.
75 Total Due: $75.00
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553 El 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\TVTDF (Tri-Valley) Fee Update\CEQA\NOE.docx
n
Map of Contra Costa County showing MD Fee Area
OoNTRA C (0 A c0um7v
CALDIFORMA
TVTD FEE AREA OF BENEFIT
RODEO C KET
MA TINE 0 PITTSBURG
PINOLE 10 H
SAN EL SOBRANTE
PABL •CONCORD a OAKLE
RICHMON PLEASANT,
EL HILL BRENT w0O
• C RRITC * CLAYTON
•WALNUT CREEK '
ORINDALAF T
MORAGA I
ISI till
iom Gam" i%m IV l ew Wm vtftn
we Gb N 7i+ iwe+ ert ae
TVTO FEE AREA
LOCATION MAP
EIDOCI—
Reeording RequestedC05TA Co Recorder Office
N L, WEIR, Clerk-Recorder
CONTRA COSTAC 2008-0243421-00
Wednesday, NOV 05, 2008 09:21:17
BOAS OF SUPERVISORS FRE $0.00: 1
651 Pine Street, Room 106 Ttl Pd $0,00 Nbr-0004250009
Martinez,_
CA 94153 irc/R9/1-13
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v ^
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez, CA 94553-1293
Document Titles)
i
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 T3Tc 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-month period ending December 31,
2008, and(2)the 12-month period ending with December 31,2009, in
accordance with the following formula:
X(1+P,)(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 X1 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,)(1+P� (1+P3)=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
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 peals hour vehicle trips than the existing
development.
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 VILLA,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 terms 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 XI. REVIEW OF FEES. Project cost estimates shall be reviewed every year
that this ordinance is in effect. On March 1 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
I
CCI 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 County. 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 0r0ber 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
B and Chair
By: fh(MQ, �L1_Ul In i\
Deputy o�
Publication Date:
LW/Attachment: Exhibit A(Map and Legal Description)
H;\Fiu*WW\Ord.No.2008-27.1021.0&wpd CQjJpj y.
Page-7-
Ordinance No.2008-27
Exhibit A
Map of Contra Costa County showing MD Fee Area
C� oHCTIumsluA cO � CTQ c 0 U H 7 ly
CaC� QG� OQ�MQQ
TVTD FEE AREA OF BENEFIT
RODEO C KETT
PINOLE
MA TINE PITTSBURG
C -
10 H
SAN EL SOBRANTE
PAWL .CONCORD a OAKLE
RICHMON PLEASANT.
HILL BRENTWOO
C 61T� * CLAYTON
•WALNUT CREEK
• a' L AF T
ORINDA
.
MORAGA I
IP'''"911
�10� �IIIII
WrE,Emw" ilcw9wat" sot .itlil
R• Entry of sm Rawuee tM
TV70 FEE AREA T~ 01°""'•
LOCATION MAP
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
REVIEWOF FEES ................................................................................................... 15
COLLECTIONOF FEES .......................................................................................... 15
INTERESTON FEES ................................................................................................ 16
INLIEU 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 SUMMARY ............................................................ 24-25
EXHIBIT F TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL NEXUS STUDY FEE UPDATE,
ADOPTED JANUARY 19, 2008 AND AMENDED FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ...... 26-56
Boundary Description
MD 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 951273 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 19°28'45" east 3,547.16 feet to Rancho
Comer P.C. No. 32 and north 1 013'26" east 929.81 feet to the boundary of the Record of Survey
filed June 20, 1960, in Book 67 of Licensed Surveyors' Maps at page 9;thence along the boundary
of said Record of Survey as follows: 1) north 88°5239"east 513.17 feet, 2) north 0015116"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 comer of Section 28, Township 1 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Meridian;
thence along the north lines of Sections 28, 27 and 26 (TIS, 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 88043'05"east 10063.84
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 (7189 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 filed June 14, 11976. 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°17'west 2,622.91 feet, and 4)
north 0°39'40"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*84 047'44" 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 centeriine 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°05'11"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 Centerline 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 comer of Lot "B"as shown on the Record of Survey filed May 13, 1964, 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 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 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 Iine 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 Utlilty 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 22°53'01" east 33.76 feet,thence crossing Rudgear Road, southeastedy 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 Hook 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 64 016'18"east 239.65 feet,m 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 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 23°15'36"east 359.22 feet, 3) north 64°03'39"east 14.72 feet,4)south 23°15'36"east
144.57 feet, 5) south 4502124" west 36.15 feet, 6) south 55615'24" west 108.21 feet, 7) south
32°31'24"west 152.34 feet, 8) south 12°04'24"west 20.34 feet, 9)south 33°09'41"east 465.15
feet, 10) north 35052'50" east 129.8 feet. 11) south 29°21'32" east 64.96 feet, and 12) south
6900952"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 53047'20"east 290 feet, more or less, to the east right
2
of way line thereof,thence along said east line in a general southeasterly direction 2,259.08 feet
to the west line of Subdivision 6468 recorded January 13, 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 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
One,.of Subdivision 4810 fled September 23. 1976 in Book 189 of Maps at page 48, south
88°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 89043'18"east
933.43 feet,south 6019'31"east 712.51 feet and along the north right of way line.of Livonia Road,
north 72°23'20"east 145.74 feet;thence crossing Trotter Way.north 72°232("east 100 feet, more
or less,to the south W*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 Uvorna Road,north 7202320"east 272.09 feet,
2) north 1 113623"east 275.72 feet, 3) south 88°23'37 east 149.23 feet 4) south 1 03623'west
223.71 feet,and 5)along the north right of way line 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 1031'W 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
Uvoma Heights Road right of way line and south 5502255"east 537 feet,to the southeast comer
of Subdivision 5931 on the west line of Subdivision 4402 retarded December 27, 1974 in Book 175
of Maps at page 25;thence along said west line,south 1 03210"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 line of Subdivision 3973 and Its southern prolongation, south 1 032'10"west 967.1
feet,to the centerline of Livoma 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 04425"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 filed June 9, 1987 In Book 313
of Maps at page 25; thence along said boundary, north 21053'150 west 3,423.26 feet, north
73"16'01"east 4.566.44 feet, end south 13°51'48"east 5,687.22 feel,to the most southern comer
thereof on the south Nne of Rancho San Miguel and the Record of Survey filed August 27, 1970
In Book 53 of Uoensed Surveyors' 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 Survey (53 LSM 13) on the
boundary of that 787.58 acm 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 9188120 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
feet, mole or less,to the centerline Intersection of Summit Road; thence along the centedins 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 comer of Section 18, Township
3
1 South, Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Meridian;thence along the west line of said Section 18 (T1s,
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 comer of Section 22,Township 1 South, Range 1 East,
Mount Diablo Meridian, thence along the west line of said Section 22 (Ti So 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, RIE);
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 1 i (T2S, R1 E), southerly 101560 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'Do 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
gAdericallexhibits\TVTDaob.exh
6/19/96
. END DF DOCUN1EN�
4
Contra Costa Times Legal No. 0002962861
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
P O Box 4147 255 Glacier Drive
Martinez,CA 94553
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 935-2525 NOTICEUC
NEARING RECEIVED
NG AND EI VE
AVAILABILITY DATA
(Ordinancearuxi forr the TrF
Valley ;r pn=rrt Fee
The Board of Supervi- OCT 2 9 2008
sors will hold a public U
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors hearing on October 28,
Board aChambers, c un- OLFRK BOAR p
June-Rm 106,651 Pine St., 1st Fl. ty Administration Build- CO OFSUp
Martinez CA 94553-1275 Ing, 651 Pine street, NTRACp ER�ISO;
Martinez, CA.to consid- STA CO 48
er Ordinance 2008-27 for
the Tri-Valley Transpor-
tationDevelopment Fee
PROOF OF PUBLICATION (rea.Area Fee) Program
Fees collected through
the Tri-Valley Trans or-
FILE NO. 2183 tation council (TVTC)
will be collected only
from new development
In the matter of within this portion of
unincorporated Contra
C05ta County and will
be collected upon the is-
suance of a building
permit
The TVTD 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
Y Cities of San Ramon
aforesaid; I am over thea a of eighteen ears,and not art to or Dublin, Pleasanton, ana
9 9 Y party Livermore, the Town of
interested in the above-entitled matter. Danville, the county of
Alameda,and the Coun-
tv of Contra Costa. The
C will surfort the
I am the Princi al Le al Clerk of the Contra Costa Times, a list of reglonal im rove-
P g 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 Prog am Report).
Costa, 94598 approvalbythe 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, Residential l$4,275 per
State of California, under the date of October 22, 1934. Case dwelling unit
Number 19764. Multi-Famey Residentia
$2,945 per dwelling unit
Retail/Commercial $3.40
The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in type not per square Foot of gross
Per
area
small than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire Office $7a7er square
er an
issue of said newspaper and not in supplement thereof on the foot of gross floor area
P P Y PPemenereoIndustrial$4.23 per
following dates,to-wit: square foot of gross
. .. . floor area .. . . .
10/110/2008, 1011712008, 10/24/2008 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 appproprl-
ate traffic stutlles, or
other means of deter-
mining traffic impacts
as approvetl by NTC,or
In accordance with the
Institute of Traffic Engi-
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-
abed,some of which in-
clude fees generated
from Measure C and
I certify(or declare)under the penalty of perjury ion Im-
provement(STIP)tFunds.
that the foregoing is true and correct. The Development Pro-
gram Report, which in-
cludes a description of
Executed at Walnut Creek, California. the proposed improve-
merrt cost estimates
On this 24 day of Octobe-,2008 andblvmeaite aal able the
Clerk of the Board.
�— .For more information
contact Jenna Caldwell
of the County Public
Signature / Works
nsportationp Engi-
neering Division at 313-
2020.
BY: EMY I_SHARP
Deputy
CCT#2962861
Ott 10.17.74 20118
"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] T
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.pdfl
"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
Exhibit A
Map of Contra Costa County showing MD Fee Area
TVTD FEE AREA OF BENEFIT
RODEG C KETT
PINOLE MA TINE o PITTSBURG
IO H
SAN EL SOBRANTE
PA OL -CONCORD a OAKLE
RICHMONPLEASANT.
y-�_ HILL BRENTW00
•C Rlk •CLAYTON
•RIT
WALNUT CREEK
ORINDALAF T
MORAGA I
10TL,C+WO.. it<WO Ot.O Wool QW-
Or Gtr Of SWC RewWWa Or
TYTO FEE AREA Tow, of Dmt.i.
LOCATION MAP
Boundary Description
TVTD Area of Benefit
Real property in Southern Contra Costa County, Callfomla, 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 Benefrt" 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 comer P.C. No. 31 on the boundary of Rancho Laguna de los Palos
Colorados; thence along said Rancho boundary, north 1902845" east 3,547.16 feet to Rancho
Comer 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 0627"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 28, 27 and 26 (TIS, 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 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 88°47'23"east
1,062.06 feet to the northwest comer of Subdivision MS 53-81 flied March 28, 1985, in Book 115
of Parcel Maps at page 14;thence along the north line of Subdivision MS 53.81, south 8804343"
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 (7189 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. 163), said
line also being the boundary of Rancho San Ramon, northwesterly 4,840 feet, more or less, to the
most easterly comer 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 foilows: 1) south 63"16'
west 193.73 feet, 2)south 76°18'50"west 481.39 feet, 3) north 84°17' 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 84°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°05'11"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 flied September 7, 1972, In Book 24 of Parcel Maps at page 9;thence along the south line
of Subdivision MS 133-72, south 89°1236"west 259.78 feet to the Centedine,of Castle Hitt 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 'IB" 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 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 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 are of a non-tangent curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 1,096 feet
on the northwest line of the Southem 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 gook 12652 of Official Records at page 570; thence non4angent along the
southwest line thereof, crossing Engineers 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 22°53'01" 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 1.1,
in a general southeasterly direction 1,036.02 feet and north 6401618"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 and 012 described as Parcel 1 in the deed to Edward Johennessen 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 foilows: 1) south 63°37'38"west 44.33 feet,
2)south 23°15'36"east 359.22 feet, 3) north 64°03'39"east 14.72 feet,4)south 23°1636"east
144.57 feet, 5) south 45°21'24" west 36.15 feet, 6) south 55015124" west 108.21 feet, 7) south
32°31'24"west 152.34 feet, 8) south 12°04'24"west 20.34 feet, 9) south 3300941" east 465.15
feet, 10) north 35052'50" east 129.8 feet, 11) south 29°21'32" east 64.96 feet, and 12) south
691 D952"east 54.67 feet, to the most southeastern comer thereof on the west right of way fine of
Interstate Freeway 680; thence along said west line in a general southeasterly direction 1,209.59
feet; thence crossing said freeway, north 5304720"east 290 feet, more or less, to the east right
2
of way line thereof,thence along said east dine in a general southeasterly d1rection.2259.08 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 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
One of Subdivision 4810 filed September 23, 1976 In Book 189 of Maps at page 48, south
69°4318"east 944.73 feet to the southwest comer of Subdivision 3037 recorded Jure 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 6°19'31"east 712.51 feet and along the north right of way line.of Livonia Road,
north 72°23'20"east 145.74 feet thence crossing Tenter Way,north 7202320"east 100 feet, more
or less,to the south line of Lot 131 (99 M 30);thence continuing along lot fines of SubdWton 3037
as follows: l)along the north right of way line of Livomg Road,north 72°23'20"east 272.09 feet,
2) north 1'36'23"east 275.72 feet, 3) south 88°2337" east 149.23 feet 4) south 1.3623"west
223.71 feet,and 5)along the north right of way line of Livome 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 lime of Subdivision 3827, north 1.31'55"east 942.5 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 55022'55"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 1'32'10"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 line 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 1'4425"east 1,057.06 feet, to the southeast comer of Subdivision
4402(175 M 25); thence continuing north 104425"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 crier 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
7301b"01*east 406.44 feet. End south 13951'48'east 5,687.22 feet, to the most southern comer
thereof on the south line of Rancho San Miguel and the Record of Survey tiled August 27, 1970
in Book 53 of Licensed Surveyor►'Maps at page 13;thence along said south itne, south 76053'13'
east 1,445.41 feet, to the most southern comer of said Record of Survey (53 LSM 13) on the
boundary of that 787.58 acre parcel shown on the Record of Surrey filed June 22, 1960, M 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 87652'06"east 9,88120 feet to the southeast comer
thereof on the northwest line of Lot D, Rancho San Miguel Robert Allen Tmct~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 fleet, more
or less,to the south lime of Section 12 Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Mount Diablo Meridian;
thence along said south rhe, 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 (TiS,
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 comer of Section 22,Township 1 South, Range 1 East,
Mount Diablo Meridian,thence along the west line of sold Section 22 (T1S, R1E), southerfy 5,280
feet, more or less,to the southwest comer thereof; thence along the south line of Sections 22 and
23 (T1 S, R1E), 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 i East, Mount Diablo Meridian;
thence along the east line of Sections 2 and 11 (T2S, R1 E),southerly 10,580 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, R1E),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;idericaflexhibitslMDaob.exr�
6/19/96
4