Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RESOLUTIONS - 01012005 - 2005-357
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Resolution on June 14,2005,by the following vote: AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA, PIEPHO, DESAULNIER, GLOVER AND UIIyR4A NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE RESOLUTION NO. 2005/ .357 SUBJECT: Resolution of Application to the Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO))of Contra Costa County to Initiate Proceedings to Form Integrated Project(Subdivisions 8331, 8381, and 8382) Transit County Service Area, Danville area. (District IIi) (Gov't Code §§ 25210.11, 252101.13, 56425, 56652., 56653, 56662, 56663, 56700) RECITALS: 1. On July 9,2002,the Board of Supervisors certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Alamo Creek project (Alamo Creek Project) and the Intervening Properties/Remaining Intervening Properties Project (IP/RIP Project) and approved the projects. Together,the Alamo Creek and IP/RIP Project(SD Nos. 8331, 8381, and 83 82)were approved for the development of 1,396 residential units(collectively,Integrated Project). As part of the approval process, the County imposed conditions that require the developers of the Integrated Project (Braddock&Logan,Lennar,Ponderosa, and Shapell)to provide and fund public transit services to the Integrated Project. To accomplish this objective,the developers are required to participate with the County in the formation of a county service area and to approve the levy of benefit assessments on parcels within the Integrated Project. 2. In 2002,litigation was filed challenging the County's approval of the Integrated Project and LAFCO's approval of the extension of water service to the Integrated Project. The parties involved in the litigation subsequently entered into a "Comprehensive Agreement to Settle Litigation" to resolve the lawsuits(Settlement Agreement). The Settlement Agreement incorporated the conditions of approval relating to the county service area. TR:rm G:\GrpDatalEngSvctBo12005\06-14\LAFCo 8O.doc I hereby certify that this is a true and correct of an Originator: Public Works(ES) copy Contact: T.Fie(313-2363) action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of cc: J.Cunningham,Community Development Supervisors on the date shown. Public Works - T.Rtie LAFCO 651 pine street,6s'Floor ATTESTED: JUNE 14, .2005 Martinez,CA 94553 N.Costa,Bingham McCutchin JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and 1333 N.California Blvd.,Ste 210 Count Administrator Walnut Creek,CA 94596 y M.Torre,Shapell industries of Northem Califomia 100 N.Milpitas Blvd. Milpitas,CA 95035 J.Lawrence,Braddock&Logan By ,Deputy 4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle,Suite 201 Danville,CA 94506 RESOLUTION NO.2005/ 357 SUBJECT: Resolution of Application to the Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO)of Contra Costa County to Initiate Proceedings to Form Integrated Project(Subdivisions 8331, 8381, and 8382)Transit County Service Area,Danville area. (District III) DATE: June 14, 2005 PAGE: 2 3. The formation of the Integrated Project Transit County Service Area will implement the conditions of approval and the provisions of the Settlement Agreement and will enable the County, without incurring additional costs to the County General Fund and the taxpayers outside of the Integrated Project, to provide and finance extended transit service to the residents and property owners of the Integrated Project. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESOLVES THAT: I. Proposal. (A) This proposal is made pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Reorganization Act of 2000(Gov't Code § 56000 et seq.)(LAFCO Law)and the County Service Area Lave(Gov't Code § 25210.1 et seq.). (B) The nature of this proposal is a change of organization for the formation of a new county service area, referred to as the Integrated Project Transit County Service Area, and the concurrent establishment of a sphere of influence boundary for said county service area; said formation is to be initiated by this Resolution of Application to LAFCO for approval of the Integrated Project Transit County Service Area. (C) The exterior boundaries of the area to be formed into the Integrated Project Transit County Service Area are all part of the unincorporated territory of Contra Costa County. A legal description and a map of the territory to be included in the proposed County Service Area are attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B,respectively. (D) Terms and conditions proposed for the change of organization are as follows: (1) In accordance with Government Code section 25210.4, the services to be provided by the Integrated Project Transit County Service Area are extended transit services to the residents of the Integrated Project, as set forth in the report entitled "Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties Transit Improvements Study: Final Report(March 2005),included as attached Exhibit C. The contents of this report, which was prepared at the request of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, shall be included in the application materials submitted to LAFCO as the plan for providing services in accordance with Government Code section 56653. (E) The reason for this proposal is to form a county service area to provide extended transit service in the territory described in Exhibit A and Exhibit B. This provision of extended services is more fully presented in the report entitled"Alamo Creek/Intervening Properties Transit Improvements Study: Final Report(March 2005), included as Exhibit C. (F) The Board of Supervisors hereby requests that LAFCO take action to accomplish the aforestated formation and hereinafter-mentioned sphere of influence establishment by proceeding under LAFCO law. (G) This proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of any affected city or district. 11. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE It is hereby requested that a sphere of influence for the Integrated Project Transit County Service Area be established co-terminus with the boundaries ofthe Integrated Project Transit County Service Area. RESOLUTION NO. 2005/357 SUBJECT: Resolution of Application to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County to Initiate Proceedings to Form.Integrated Project(Subdivisions 8331, 8381, and 8382) Transit County Service Area,Danville area. (District III) DATE: June 14, 2005 PAGE: 3 III. MISCELLANEOUS (A) The funding for the Integrated Project Transit County Service Area is to be from a yet to be approved and established benefit assessment charge obtained from those specially benefiting from the services, from user fees or charges in accordance with the County Service Area Law, or from special taxes authorized pursuant to Government Code sections 25210.6x,23027, and 50075 et seq. (B) The persons to be informed as to any notice of proceedings and to receive copies of any reports of the Executive Officer are: (1)Public Works Director-Maurice Shiu, Contra Costa County,Public Works Department,255 Glacier Drive,Martinez,California 94553-4825;(2) Shapell -J. Christian Truebridge,Shapell Industries ofNorthern California, 100 North Milpitas Boulevard, Milpitas, California 95035; (3) Ponderosa - Jeff Schroeder, Ponderosa Domes, Land Planning Section, 6671 Owens Drive, Pleasanton, California 94588; (4)Braddock-Robert S. Miller, Esq., Braddock & Logan Services, Inc., 4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 201, Danville, California 94506-46131; (5) Lennar - Brian Olin, Lennar Domes of California, Inc., Bishop Ranch One, Building Z, 6121 Bollinger Canyon, Suite 500, San Ramon, California 94583; and (6)Bingham McCutchen-Nadia L. Costa, 1333 N.California Blvd.,Suite 210,Walnut Creek,California 94596. (C) The Public Works Director(with the assistance of the Clerk of this Board)is hereby directed to submit a certified copy of this Resolution of Application and all other required application materials to the Executive Officer of LAFCO in accordance with LAFCO Law. RESOLU110N Na. 2005/357 "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA." ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "A" ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY, SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEING A PORTION OF SECTIONS 4, 5 AND 9, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, AND A PORTION OF SECTIONS 32 AND 33, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SUB-PARCEL I (ALAMO CREEK) BEGINNING AT THE POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 73018'43" WEST 428.94 FEET FROM A STANDARD STREET MONUMENT IN THE INTERSECTION OF BLACKHAWK DRIVE AND CAMINO TASSAJARA, THE CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM 1983 DATUM COORDINATE N 2281183.90, E 6438840.32, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1950.21 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 12059'15" WEST; THENCE 1) EASTERLY 492.41 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14028'00", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 491.10 FEET; THENCE 2) SOUTH 88°41'01" EAST 918.99 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1950.20; THENCE 3) EASTERLY 187.74 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5030'56", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 187.67 FEET; THENCE 4) NORTH 0102835" EAST 14.90 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 2296.66 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 05012'56" EAST; THENCE 5) EASTERLY 214.43 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5020'58", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 214.35 FEET; THENCE 6) SOUTH 79°26'06" EAST 129.83 FEET; THENCE 7) NORTH 78°02'16" WEST 347.00 FEET; THENCE 8) NORTH 01028'35" EAST 25.42 FEET; THENCE 9) SOUTH 78°02'16" EAST 840.37 FEET; THENCE 10) SOUTH 05°33'28" EAST 1146.07 FEET; THENCE 11) SOUTH 02°14'27" WEST 1660.66 FEET; THENCE 12) SOUTH 72051'09" EAST 248.70 FEET; THENCE 13) SOUTH 19055'23" WEST 485.76 FEET; THENCE 14) SOUTH 19004'32" EAST 310.76 FEET; THENCE 15) SOUTH 07°28'37" WEST 231.10 FEET; THENCE 16) SOUTH 14°22'57' EAST 352.47 FEET' THENCE "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA." ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 17) SOUTH 13°32'28" WEST 520.13 FEET; THENCE 18) SOUTH 37°00'00" WEST 220.00 FEET; THENCE 19) SOUTH 66°45'00" WEST 552.17 FEET; THENCE 20) SOUTH 07°30'00" EAST 160.52 FEET; THENCE 21) SOUTH 05°30'00" WEST 1330.80 FEET; THENCE 22) NORTH 71-34'36" WEST 133.16 FEET; THENCE 23) SOUTH 67°50'49' WEST 63.56 FEET; THENCE 24) SOUTH 44°21'38" WEST 305.22 FEET; THENCE 25) NORTH 05°59'20" EAST 375.19 FEET; THENCE 26) NORTH 88°49'33" WEST 3897.41 FEET; THENCE 27) NORTH 00°49'06" EAST 2652.17 FEET; THENCE 28) NORTH 89°0117" WEST 247.65 FEET; THENCE 29) NORTH 32°49'40" EAST 867.88 FEET; THENCE 30) SOUTH 90°00'00" EAST 155.88 FEET; THENCE 31) NORTH 33°02'46" EAST 252.87 FEET; THENCE 32) NORTH 75°34'33" EAST 378.03 FEET; THENCE 33) NORTH 45°01'27" EAST 353.57 FEET; THENCE 34) NORTH 48°50'17" EAST 346.67 FEET; THENCE 35) NORTH 23°26'47" EAST 355.30 FEET; THENCE 36) NORTH 03°12'08" EAST 728.98 FEET; THENCE 37) NORTH 42°36'00" EAST 313.12 FEET; THENCE 38) NORTH 04°5623" EAST 193.13 FEET; THENCE 39) NORTH 45°07'49" WEST 25.69 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 522.14 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 84047'59" EAST; THENCE 40) NORTHERLY 144.80 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15°53'21", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 144.34 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 462.11 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 68°54'38" WEST; THENCE 41) NORTHERLY 134.34 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1603923", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 133.87 FEET; THENCE 42) NORTH 04°25'59" WEST 225.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 90.00 FEET; THENCE 43) EASTERLY 136.40 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 86050'02", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 123.71 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 2083.05, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 07035'57" EAST; THENCE 44) EASTERLY 216.66 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5057'34", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 216.56 FEET; THENCE 45) NORTH 76026'29" EAST 402.94 FEET; THENCE "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA." ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 46) NORTH 03016'26" EAST 34.21 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUB-PARCEL 2 (INTERVENING PROPERTIES) BEGINNING AT THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, THE CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATION SYSTEM 1983 DATUM COORDINATE IS N 2,284,370.68, E 6,438,799.75; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING 1) NORTH 01-12'32" EAST 1693.82 FEET 2) NORTH 01012'32" EAST 882.54 FEET; THENCE 3) NORTH 00°51'07" EAST 657.98 FEET; THENCE 4) SOUTH 89°0853" EAST 277.44 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NOW TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 45.00 FEET; THENCE 5) EASTERLY 55.88 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 71008'48", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 52.36 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 33003'22"WEST; THENCE 6) EASTERLY 11.24 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32012'15", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 11.09 FEET; THENCE 7) SOUTH 89°08'53" EAST 102.50 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 640.00 FEET; THENCE 8) EASTERLY 102.24 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°09'11", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 102.13 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH HAVING A RADIUS OF 341.29 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO THE BEGINNING OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 01°00'18"WEST; THENCE 9) EASTERLY 170.55 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28037'57" A CHORD DISTANCE OF 168.78 FEET; THENCE 10) NORTH 71-22'20" EAST 215.17 FEET; THENCE 11) NORTH 26°22'20" EAST 28.28 FEET; THENCE 12) NORTH 18°37'40" WEST 50.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 239.00 FEET; THENCE 13) NORTHERLY 87.22 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20054'31", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 86.73 FEET; THENCE 14) NORTH 02°16'51" EAST 466.15 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE 15) NORTHWESTERLY 31.49 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90014'59", A CHORD DISTANCE OF 28.34 FEET; THENCE "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA." ALAMO CREEK/ INTERVENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 16) SOUTH 87°57'58" EAST 46.24 FEET; THENCE 17) NORTH 00°51'07" EAST 50.01 FEET; THENCE 18) SOUTH 87057'58" EAST 338.35 FEET; THENCE 19) SOUTH 74°24'09" EAST 555.01 FEET; THENCE 20) SOUTH 10°50'35" WEST 330.93 FEET; THENCE 21) SOUTH 1235'35" EAST 1024.98 FEET; THENCE 22) SOUTH 10°28'23" WEST 860.58 FEET; THENCE 23) SOUTH 10°28'23" WEST 567.73 FEET; THENCE 24) SOUTH 32°49'40" WEST 1332.65 FEET; THENCE 25) NORTH 88°58'18" WEST 1063.07 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 756.12 ACRES MORE OR LESS EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED, AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE APART HEREOF. A.P.N.'S 206-020-033, 206-190-001, 002, 003, 005 & 006, 206-220-001, 002, 003 & 004 AND 206-030-23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33 & 35 AND 206-020-017. 40 le 633 CAMINO TASSAJAI-4 CAVjjVO TASSA JAf?A N' Tit ppp m Nti p Up P t� ta {�I AI11 ""N' O qW f1� C7 VV y NgQ t`y+�` iRIV t08 ,•y�qa'I4'r �►Ni'Oso -0 -0Sp :a ate' > r1`�°"ry �1 00, 4 P) "V �VOH �W CK SEK O m tA 2 .� -4 Lnd f th y 01- Cas it 410. tp .+ t7 9CP . rA ra too- 0- 00 33-32 EC-� OR Hca L� ti• J00 cl N WGA roq 'o.� ° \ -` "'� i\ \, `' `'iI V + N 0 A Vis'° N , , �\ \ \ 0 wr \ \ ra ON P , J \ (P cow car Wu+ ' v ``'' \ \ Uto , n'. trot o V A\ \\ � , LTI CIA ,.-s 601. D ox 00. �' �'• Q » Utz` X00, $. 206 01 CD N 71 34'36" W 133.16' ? ..+�5�7y'36"7'50'49" 4 3.�b 30'J.22. 3 ....+ yy W rd r EXHIBIT w PLAT MAP ` -FARCE. 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 400 0 200 4W 800 1600 SCALE 1"=400' ( IN FEET } EXIST. CAMINO TASSAJARA 1 inch = 400 it RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC1146.07' 10 S 05'3312B'* E S 78`02'16" E 840.37' V- W S 79`26'06" E .83 (�) R=2296.66' ? N 78°02'16" W 347 (�1J0 /L=214.43' • s n ' �=05 20 58 C=214.35 �."./ N 01 `2835" E 25.42' - - - -- - _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _._ .._ _ - ON 01`28'35" E 14.90' SUB-PARCEL 1 R=1950.201' L=187.74' „ A=05 30 56 QQ C=187.67' 206--030-023 S 88`41 '01 " E 918.99' —T- 205-030- 1 206-030- 027 f N 0003259" W 22.91 ' I ' N 11`11 '17" W -w----- C � " _ ..._ .N 73'1843" E 428.94 {TIE TO MON. 288.51 ' 205---030-025 13 �yf R=1950.1 ' .5g'15" L=492.41 ' 12 I 1 A=14`28'00" C=491 .10' "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA" E 41 g.08' 30 ALAMO CREEK f INTERVENING PROPERTIES N 03-16'26" CONTRA COSTA COUNY CALIFORNIA A.P.N. S 206•-030-23,2 ,26,27,28,33,35 & 206-190--001,002,003,005,006 & 206-220-001,002,003 004 & 223--020--017 POR} APRIL 17, 2005 SHEET 3 OF 6 98-1009--11 8381—LAFCO.DWG E HBIT "B" PLAT MAP SUB-PARCEL 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 490 0 299 � 400 sw1690 SCALE 1"=800' ( tN FEE ) I inch 800 f L EXIST. CAMINO TASSAJARA----.w,, RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC ---- C,� 0� �'} „33 G"��y+� 2 E 1146.07' @ S 78°02'16" E 840.37' SUB-PARCEL 1 S 79'26'06" E 129..83' R=2296.66' L=214.43' 4� jj'`����ry} ^ t�1 /� �1_ =05'20'58„ N 78-02'16" YM 347.00' C=214.35' ry 05-12'%56" N 01 *28835" E 25,42' "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA" ALAMO CREEK f INTERVENING PROPERTIES N 01 -28'35" E 14.90 CONTRA COSTA COUNY, CALIFORNIA (' A.P.N.'S 206--030-23,25,26,27,28,33,35 & 4- 206-190-001,002,003,005,006 & 206--220--001,002,003 004 & 223--020-017�POR) R=1950.20' APRIL 17, 2005 L=187.74' A=05`30'56" A890 IAT'ES hm c-49110' __ �Ta4- . M-614MG• S��ET 4 OF S 1440 Morio Lone, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, California 94596 98-1009--11 11 Rhone: (925) 932-6868 Fox: (925) 932-9910 8381—LAFCO.UWG 0 D? :538.3 57, 74`24'09" E 555.01' 19 4��+`�"���'� ��• '��+����SRA ��� :. 6143 LA 0) t� = 1 tat c3` "ate w t s 10UA rn ` '-sloes W 7a nZ ow A Co's � �� w r� 0 cot .0 *.. �pW a d W-P 0 1' 1-0 ,�'' pro '� "' 00 V) � � s �` 19 N)fin OD 0-0 pN t310 CD ? a d 00 W ' m 206-49 N10 OAA . :n ` `'' ca a 7t` 20 N 12 } orn l i�,v .1 SJt tl1 Cf �`� 013 N °' �,... --yj �, ) 1 0:� y �• 450' L4 L40 Py140_o2g Z \ C) i 20ro-140-017 �+ \ N e i tH ate. .. t� t-A oz ApN 140 012 W m w v,, 206- 25 N Ap11 140_020a• 8. 10b iT EWIT PLAT MAP UB-P IREL 2 "INTEGRATED PROJECT TRANSIT CSA" ALAMO CREEK ./ 1NTER,VENING PROPERTIES CONTRA COSTA COUNY CALIFORNIA A.P.N. S 206-030 '23L2t 26 27,28,33,35 & 206-190--001,0012,0( 3, 5,006 & 206--2201-0011002,003 004 & 223- 020--0171POR) APRIL 17, 20 5 200 0 i00 200 400 �+ m z rnz; r b _0 OD Gcoo RAPHIC SCALE 0 0d W ( IN FEET pp I inch = 200 ft. 0 00 z b c� N 03*19'39" w � _ C� CAMINQ TASSAJARA � 37.56"(TIE TO CQ-4— r ;? 587'57'58"E 889.59' (TIE) m z w 587'57'58"E 3_90'14'49„ 46,24 16 R-20.00 L=31.49' OD PDi- C=28.34' OD 1t- U-1 qt rn cc cV m cow ! C[1 tf) 0 CD Z ct 3-32`12'15" A=20'54'31„ R=239.00' APN R=20.00' L-87.22 206-480-025 L=11.24 A=28'37'57" C=86.73' 13 ------ , C=11.09 R=341.29 00 025 e 589`08'53"E L=170.55' N18e, 027 N3`�bl, 1 102.50' o C-168.78' 50.55'40 2 02E1 �C ^� �',1 � 113 - N26'22'20"E 115 277.44' 4 2�5' yip° 28.28' 11 CASABLANCA ST 589'08'53"E ,.i 119 Z 3-71`08'48" �' 3=09109'11" w - R=45.00' (,-P R=640.00' °° `i 062 L=55.88` L=102.24' LACl) � C=52.36' C=102.13' 8 6 U+ `� SHEET 6 6F 6 Exhibit C ALAMO CREEK/INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY Final Report Prepared for: Contra Costa County Community Development Department Prepared by: rm.¢xs i Wilbur Smith Associates WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES March 2005 ���� CONTENTS ���� � ��������� ��� ������ � ���� �� �� � Puee CHAPTER ] - INTRODUCTION }/) Project Description ................. ..................................................'.............................. ]-] 1.1 Existing CoDditi0DG...-.....~.-...,..-'..^'_~''.^---~^-~'''~^^-'---'`-^--^^'' 1-3 1.1.1 Census 2000 Journey .TOWork Data......................................................... ]-3 l.1.2 Vehicle Occupancy.................................................................................... 1-4 | 1.7 Transit Demand......................................................................................................... 1-5 1.2.1 Land Use................................................................................................... I-5 1.2-2 Calculation ofTransit Demand.................................................................. l-5 1.2'3 Different Modes OfTransit Demand.......................................................... l-7 1.3. Existina Transit Service........................................................................................... l-8 1.3.17 Contra Costa County Connection Service................................................. 1-9 1.3-2 BART Mode of Access............................................................................ l~l} 1.4 Market Analysis.-~'`'~~._-,-..'.~--.-.---...._-.-....-.~.^.,.-.......---.....-- 1-12 CHAPTER 2 - PROMISING BUS SERVICE STRATEGIES 2.0 Commute Market Origins and Destinations.............................................................2-] 2,1 Employment Destinations.........................................................................................2-} | 2.I.1 Regional Transit Hubs............................................................................... %{ 2.1^2 Residential Origins ....................................................................................2-1 2-2 Market Dimensions...................................................................................................2-2 2.3 Bus Access Options at the Proposed Project Sites ...................................................2-2 2.3'1 Flexible Route Option................................................................................2-2 � 2.3.2 Fixed Route Option#1...............................................................____*1)-3 ! 2,3-3 Fixed Route Option#2-.^'.-'-~'-'^^`-~^^-^-'-'^`~`-^--`^-'-'^-2'3 | 2.3/4 Fixed Route Option#3'..-'^---^'^^''-'`^^~^'`^^`'-~-^--^-^'----2-3 2^3,5 Summary`_.__,,_..,__^.^..,__,~_,^_,_,____,,,_.,,--.....^^_._-`...2-7 2'4 Potential Service Linkage Strategies ........................................................................2-7 2/4.1 Strategy A-Walnut Creek........................................................................2-7 2'4-2 Strategy B - BART Strategy.......................................2-9 2.4.3 Strategy C-Walnut Creek BART via Bishop Ranch...............................2-g � 2,4/4 Strategy IJ-Hacienda Business Park..................................... ..................2-9 2,4.5 Strategy E-Bishop Ranch Shuttle............................................................2-9 2.4.6 Summary......,,---~-.-_..-...'.-,_~........._...-....--..--2-l4 CHAPTER 3 - IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS � 3.0 New Service................................................................ .............................................3-1 / 3]].1 Walnut Creek BART Service(Strategy A-3) ............................................3-I � 3/0-2 Dublin/Pleasanton BART and Hacienda Business Park Service...............3-2 3.0'3 Summary.......................................................... 3] Modification of Current Service......................................... ............................... ._.3-3 / 516990 AuwwoCREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Pogo � TABLE OF <=ONTENT 3.1.1 Route 960...................................................................................................j-3 3.1.2 Route 970...................................................................................................d-4 3-4�'}.� -..-,.-.-..`~-.~.'—.'..—.~~.—.-.....-~....`-.~.^_~.'..-.—.. 3.2 Vehicle Needs.............................................................................................. ^'~^^'~3~* 3.3 Management Options 3-5-.^.~--...-..—........ ................................................... �~� 3`3.1 COnDe�io8...,............^—.-.—.^~.......~..~...'~....'~~_.—, 3'3.2 P-riY81eContractor......................................................................................3~6 3.4 � 3-ADA .—~^--~''-^^^'—^^--~''~''—^'^^^''^'~^-^^~''—'^^—~---'—'—~ 3.5 Phased Implementation 3~6 rnnl�2��t����.'.._—^—'-^^-~~^—^~~'-~—'—^--'~—`^^—'~^'----'—'~' . �^� 3.5^1 S�aUegy .—.....—.—.'^'^-~'-'^-'^^-^'—^^— 3.6 Marketing and Fare Plan...........................................................................................j-D �~4 3.1fRe0o�ceTnYe0tD]entPlan.....—.~..-...^....—..~'—.~..—~....-.—.-....-^',_,~_ 3.7.1 Annual Operating Costs.............................................................................3-Q 3.7.2 Capital Costs............................................................................................3-Tl ]-l} �.7.] '~^^'~`'—'''~^---'^'---^~~~-~`—^—^—^^`^'~''--'~-`^—'—' �_}\ 3.8 POb�l�a} ����e�t8-.....—^.---..—.^.-.—~...~.—_—.—.^-^~..---..~...,_—_.— LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Contra Costa County Residents—Place of Work.................................. ............. 1'3 Table 2: Mode Share for the Proposed Project Sites ......................................................... l~4 l'5 Table 3: Average Vehicle —~-_-,^__...__^,__._,_____.__.______._ Table 4: Summary 0fDaily Person Trips .......................................................................... l-6 Table 5: Summary Of Total Daily Public Transit Trips ....................................... 1-7 Table 6: Daily Transit Trips bvType ofTransit................................................................ 1~8 �f�cn���� 2-15 Table 7: �zr�o����—..—^..---..—^—__—___.___.. Table 8: WaToo±Creek BART Service Morning Schedule................................................3-2 Table 9: Walnut Creek BART Service Evening Schedule.................................................3-2 Table 10: Dublin/Pleasanton Morning BARTService.................. .....................................3-2 Table ll: Dublin/Pleasanton Evening BAR[ Service.........................................................3-3 Table 12: Annual Cost Estimates for Service Options ......................................................3-|0 LIST-OF FIGURES Figure T: Project Site Location............................................................................................ 1-2 Figure 2: County Connection Route 22}........................................................................... 1-10 Figure 3: Average Daily Ridership per Run ooCCCTARoute 22l................................. l-\l Figure 4: Local Routing—OptioD#i ..--..~--.......-.,-......,~,...—`.^'.—.^-.^—~—..—_2-4 5: Local Routing_ #2 .—...'-^..--,~--~.,.'~.~^.'~^—...~-..—..—.._..2~5 Figure6: Local Routing— #3 ...,.^,`-__..,.__.,..,_,.,._,._~,,,_,_,^,,~,.,,__2~6 Figure7: ��1ern8�ve/\—�Y8lmDt(�Teek{�A�l7`.—.._—..-.....—.--.—..~..-.-._-.—.'......2-8 Figure8: Al1er�a�ve]�— S�A�lT~—..-'.--.—.---.--..~.---.—.—.2-l0 Figureg: Alternative(`— Ranch—�Vu]uot Creek BART —.--.--..—.-----2- l Figure }[t T)— Raoch— ��/�RT------_----2-l2 Figure �} ��1�c�e�v�]� ��ot� �h�t�� 2-13 �o�� � —�umoo� --.-.—..--..^-~.-.—.^--..~.~.,—' 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page ii TABLE OF e—ONTEENTS APPENDICES A: A-1 Means of Transportation to Work A-2 BART Mode of Access B: B-1 Vehicle Trip Generation Rates B-2 Vehicle Trips B-3 Person Trips B-4 Transit Trips C: C-1 County Connection RTE 221 C-2 Existing 960 B/C and 70/C Routes D: Bishop Ranch Employment Centers E: County Connections Adopted Policy for Service Expansion 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILSUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page iii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION This report describes potential transit service strategies directed at commute travel demand generated by Alamo Creek and the Intervening Properties (herein referred to jointly as the "Proposed Projects" and individually as the "Proposed Alamo Creek Project" and the"Proposed Intervening Properties Project"). The following sections in Chapter 1 describe the project location, travel mode information, employment location information, existing bus and rail transit service, and other transportation studies conducted in the area. This assessment is intended to provide the background with which to understand potential transit use and market demands for the Proposed Projects. 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Proposed Alamo Creek Project and the Proposed Intervening Properties Project sites are located on a total of 609 acres in Contra Costa County. The Proposed Projects would involve construction of two new residential projects located in the area south of Camino Tassajara between Hansen Lane and Finley Road. The Proposed Intervening Properties Project would include construction of 377 single family residential units and 96 multi-family residential units. The Proposed Alamo Creek Project would include construction of 679 single family residential units, 124 multi-family residential units, and 120 senior housing units. In addition, a school with a capacity for 740 students and several soccer fields are also proposed. The study area for the following transit analysis is located in unincorporated Contra Costa County south of Camino Tassajara, west of the Blackhawk community, and east of Lawrence Road (just east of the Town of Danville). Other roadways within the vicinity of Proposed Projects are Shadow Creek Drive, Grow Canyon Road, Lawrence Road, Tassajara Ranch Drive, Blackhawk Drive (gated), Mansfield Drive (gated), Parkhaven Drive, and Buckingham Drive (gated). Figure I presents the location of the Proposed Projects' sites. Based on information obtained from the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA), the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) and Census 2000, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) evaluated existing transit trip demand within the study area during daily and peak commute periods. The following are the components of the existing transit demand addressed in this report: • County Connection (CCCTA transit service)ridership, ■ BART transit ridership, * 2400 Census Journey to Work data, and ■ CCCTA person trips. 578990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 20105 Paget - 1 °s d W `n a � � ¢ a. G fit' IL CLCLC`t ` a19 - - `` t a pwp� OM mg ca r C r Ate^ t1 e ...Y,, it Olk 4 M Q � O a z In addition, recent traffic and transportation studies relevant to the Proposed Projects including the Final Environmental Impact.Report (EIR)for the Camino Tassajara Combined General Flan Amendment Study and Related Actions (2001 and subsequent addenda) and the Dougherty Valley Transit Study (2004) provided background information and was resourced for coordination of future transit service in the area. The EIR provided vehicle generation rates to determine projected travel demand for the Proposed Projects. The Dougherty Valley Transit Study was prepared for the proposed Windemere and {male Ranch developments in nearby Dougherty Valley. Within the study area,the existing transit usage is related to a rather minimal transit service. The addition of direct service along Camino Tassajara or a more attractive fare structure (discounted or free fares) would be expected to attract new and greater ridership potentials. Therefore, the maximum potential transit use is assessed in terms of latent transit demand or unrealized demand. The following sections present a market assessment of the potential transit use for the Proposed Projects. 1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1.1.1 Census 2000 Journey To Work Data Based on current Census 2000 data, journey-to-work patterns for six adjacent census tracts (3451.03, 3451.07,3451.08, 3451.09, 3462.02, and 3551.04) are analyzed as part of this study. At the time of this study, place-of-work data from Census 2000 was available on the County level. As shown in Table 1, approximately 57 percent of Contra Costa County residents work within Contra Costa County while 22 percent commute to Alameda County and 11 percent commute to San Francisco. Table 1 Contra Costa County Residents - Place of Work Place of Work No. of Persons Percent Contra Costa County 254,749 58% Alameda Coumy 95,938 22% San Francisco Coun 49,525 11% Santa Clara Coun 10,1452% 9 San Mateo County 9272%_____ .__.........._._ _ _..__...._____.___....____..._... _803 2%- MarinCoun .--_._._.._.µ..__...__.__.._....._.6�7._._____.__.__._.__.._..........._ _ .�......_._...____ Solano County 6,506 1% Other 8,652 2% Total 441,597 100% Data Source: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3)-Sample Data According to Census 2000 joumey-to-work information, the majority of residents of the six adjacent census tracts travel to work by car, while only a very small percentage use a form of 516490 AIAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 1 - 3 public transit to work. Overall, approximately 93 percent of all commuters travel to work by car. Transit is used by approximately five percent of the total number of commuters. The remaining two percent of commuters categorize motorcycle, bicycle, walk, or other forms of transportation means as their mode to work. Table 2 presents the mode share for each of the six census tracts. Table 2 Mode Share for Six Census Tracts Adjacent to the Proposed Project Sites Census Tracts Mode of Travel 3451.03 3451.07 3451.08 3451.09 3462.02 3551.04 Total Car, trucLor van: 91.9% 93.6% 92.2% 93.4% 90.7% 93.0%0 92.5% Public transportation: 6.2% 4.3% 6.3% 4.8% 7.2%0 4.4% 5.4% Motorcycle,bike,walk and other means 1.911/0 2.0% 1.5% 1.8% 2.1% 2.6% 2.0% Total Commuters (not work at home) 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1 100.0% 100.01% 100.0% Source:Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3)- Sample Data otes: Appendix A provides additional detail on the share for sub-modes,such as carpool and different transit types. Census 2000 designates three types of rail modes including: rail, streetcar, subway, and elevated. The BART system can be classified as any of these types of rail and is the major rail system servicing the San Francisco Bay Area near these census tracts. It should be noted that the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), which runs from San Jose to Stockton, also serves nearby Pleasanton. However, according to Census 2000 place-of-work data, around four percent of Contra Costa residents commute to the counties served exclusively by the ACE train (Santa Clara and San Joaquin). Therefore, it was assumed that any transit commuter who identified a type of rail mode would be a BART patron. Under this assumption, 97 percent of the transit commuters in these tracts take BART to work'. Appendix A-1 provides details of the mode share to work for the six adjacent census tracts. 1.1.2 Vehicle Occupancy As presented in Table 2, around 93 percent of commuters travel by car from the six adjacent census tracts. Of those that used private vehicles to get to work, approximately 90.5 percent drove alone, while 9.5 percent carpooled. The average number of people per vehicle during the work journey for these census tracts is 1.05. Table 3 presents information on vehicle occupancy. l Based on the percent of public transit commuters who indicated railroad,elevated,streetcar or subway in Census 2000 data. 516999 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2045 Page 1 -4 Table 3 Average Vehicle Occupancy for Six Census Tracts A jacent to Project.Area Total Percentage Total No. of Average# Carpooled Commuters 1 of Commuters 2 Vehicles persons In 2-person carpool 1,859 7.2/0 930 per vehicle In 3-person carpool 404 1.6% 135 In 4-person carpool 75 0.3% 19 In 5- or 6-person carpool 35 0.1% 6 In 7-or-more-person carpool 67 0.3% 10 Total car ool 2,440 9.5% 1,100 Total drove alone 23,286 90.5% 23,286 Total car,truck or van 25 726 100.0% 224,386 1.05 Source:Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3)- Sample Data Notes; (1) Total number of those who drove to work. (2) Percentage of those who drove to work(i.e., 7.2%of driving commuters were in a 2 person car pool). 1.2 TRANSIT DEMAND The following section presents the estimated transit demand to and from the Proposed Projects' sites. The methodology includes an evaluation of land uses as well as AM and PM peak and daily transit demand. Information regarding intermediate and component figures is also presented. 1.2.1 Land Use The Proposed Projects would ivolve construction of two new residential areas including 377 single family residential units and 96 multi-family residential units for the Proposed Intervening Properties Project and 679 single family residential units, 124 multi-family residential units, and 120 senior housing units for the Proposed Alamo Creek Project. In addition, a school with a capacity for 740 students and several soccer fields are also proposed. For the purpose of this study, only residential uses were used to determine transit trip demand. 1.2.2 Calculation of Transit Demand The Proposed Project transit demand was based on both the Contra Costa Countywide travel demand forecasting model developed by OCTA and Census 2000 journey-to-work information. In order to estimate a transit demand for the Proposed Projects, WSA developed a methodology based on daily vehicle and person trips generated by each of the projects. WSA first determined the total number of daily vehicle trips generated by both the Proposed Alamo Creek Project and the Proposed Intervening Properties Project (based on the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment Study and Related Actions FE'IR). From these total daily vehicle trips, daily person trips were estimated by applying the Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) and the average vehicle mode share (based on the six adjacent census tracts 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 1 - 5 to the project site as presented in Table 2 and Table 3). As such, approximately 13,338 person trips would be generated daily from both projects (see Table 4). The Proposed Alamo Creek Project would generate approximately 8,600 daily person trips and the Proposed Intervening Properties Project would generate approximately 4,700 daily person trips. Appendix B-1, B-2 and B-3 present details of the number of daily vehicle and person trips calculations including vehicle generation rates from the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan. Amendment Study and Related Actions FEIR. Table 4 Summary of Daily Person Trips Proposed Alamo Creek Project and the Proposed Intervening Properties Project No. No. of Daily % of Vehicle of Vehicle Mode Total No. of Units Tri s(i) AVO(2)(3) Share(3) Person Trips Proposed Alamo Creek Project Single Family Residential 674 6,498 1.05 92.5% 7,376 Multi-Family Residential 124 823 1.05 92.5% 935 Senior Housing 120 258 1.05 92.5% 293 Total 923 7,579 1.05 92.5% 8,604 Proposed Intervening Properties Pro`e Single Family Residential 377 3,608 1.05 92.5% 46,096 Multi-Family Residential 96 562 1.05 92.5% 638 Total 473 4J70 1.05 92.5% 4,734 Total 1,396 10,048 1.05 1 92.5% 13,338 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Notes: (l) Source: Based on vehicle trip generation rates sited in the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment Study and Related Actions FEIR (2) AVO-Average Vehicle Occupancy. (3) Source:Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3)- Sample Data Based on six census tracts adjacent to the Proposed Project sites. To determine the number of transit trips that would be generated by the Proposed Projects, the percentage of transit mode share(approximately 5.4 percent, see Table 2) was applied to the total number of daily person trips. As such, approximately 716 transit trips would be generated daily by both projects. The Proposed Alamo Creek Project would generate approximately 462 daily transit trips and the Proposed Intervening Properties Project would generate approximately 254 daily transit trips. Table 5 presents a summary of total transit trips for each Proposed Project. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 1 - 6 Table 5 Summary of Total Daily Public Transit Trips Proposed Alamo Creek Project and the Proposed Intervening Properties Project % of Public Total No. of Total No. of Transit Made Public Transit Person Tris Share(1) Trips Proposed Alamo Creek Project 8,604 5.37% 462 Pro posed Intervening Properties Protect 1 4,734 5.37% 254 Total 13,338 5.37% 716 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Notes: (1)Based on Census 2000 Journey to Work information for the adjacent six census tracts. 1.2.3 Different Modes of Transit Demand The transit mode share information from Census 2000 accounts for different forms of public transit including: ■ Bus or trolley bus ■ Streetcar or trolley car ■ Subway or elevated ■ Railroad ■ Ferryboat ■ Taxicab For the purposes of this study, WSA assessed the total number of daily bus trips that would be generated to and from the Proposed Project sites. In order to estimate these bus trips, WSA determined two types of daily transit trips that would be generated by the Proposed Projects: 1. The number of bus trips that would be destined to BART; and 2. The number of bus trips to work. BUS TRIPS TO BART To determine the number of bus trips that would be traveling to BART, WSA first assessed the rail mode share of the total number of transit trips (716 public transit trips). Approximately 97 percent(see Appendix A) of the total number of transit trips would travel by rail (around 694 rail trips). From these rail trips, WSA then determined the type of multi-modal trips that would access BART. As discussed in Section 1.1.1, Census 2000 data presents the primary mode of transportation to work, but does not account for multiple modes used for journey-to-work trips. For example, if traveling on BART is the primary mode of the work trip (i.e. a commuter who drives from home to a BART station then takes the train to their place of work), Census 2000 would count their means of transportation to work as a subway or rail trip. This is particularly important to note for this study because the three nearest BART stations to the Proposed Projects' sites (the Dublin/Pleasanton Station, the Lafayette Station and the Walnut Creek Station) are located over 518440 AIAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 1 -7 six miles away and would most likely generate another type of trip (i.e. bus, car or carpool) at the site. To account for the multi-modal trips, BART riders' mode of access data was obtained from BART's Station Access Study (1998). This information was used to calculate the percentage of BART riders who use bus or other types of transit to access either the BART (see Appendix A- 2). The percentage of projected bus or other types of transit users was calculated as transit trips originating from the Proposed Projects' sites. According to the BART Station Access Study, approximately seven percent of BART riders at the Dublin/Pleasanton, Walnut Creek and Lafayette Stations use another form of transit to access the system. Applying the seven percent factor to the total Proposed Projects' rail transit demand (694 trips), approximately 48 bus or other transit trips would be generated daily to BAkT. ECUS TRIPS TO WORK Based on Census 2000 Journey to Work data for the six adjacent census tracts, approximately four percent of the total number of public transit trips are bus trips (see Appendix A-1). As a result,approximately 29 bus-only trips are generated by the Proposed Projects. Therefore, the number of home-based bus trips generated by the Proposed Projects is estimated to be approximately 77 one-way passenger trips per day (about 38 roundtrips). Table 6 below presents the total bus demand generated by the Proposed Projects. Appendix.B4 provides detail calculations of the total transit trips by mode of transit. Table 6 Daily Transit Trips By Type of Transit Proposed Alamo Creep Project and the Proposed Intervening Properties Project No. of bus No. bus Total Public Trips by trips to trips to Total bus Transit Tris rail/BART tt BA.R7'(2} work'31 demand Proposed Alamo Creek Project 462 448 31 19 50 Proposed Intervening Properties Project 254 246 17 10 27 Total 716 694 48 .29 J 77 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates No s: (1)Assumes 97.0 percent of total transit trips are by rail/BART(Source: Census 2000 journey-to-work) (2)Assumes 7.0 percent of total number of rail/BART riders(Source: BART's Station Access Study, 1998). (3)Assumes 4.0 percent of the total number of transit trips(Source:Census 2000 journey-to-work). 1.3 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE While a number of factors affect transit ridership, including land use and demographics, the current low levels of transit usage in the area around the Proposed Projects site is related to a limited transit service. The addition of direct service or a more attractive fare structure would be expected to attract new and greater ridership potentials. 5]6440 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2DD5 Page 1 -8 1.3.1 Contra Costa County Connection Service Effective in late December 2004, County Connection's Route 221 service near the Proposed Projects was limited to only serve "Select Service" trips in order to decrease annual operating costs. Select Service trips would be in effect only when local public schools are in session. In addition to changing to "Select Service" operations, this service also removed its 2:40 PM and 2:35 PM trips. Although Route 221 limited its service near the Proposed Projects, patronage characteristics of Route 221 offered insights into potential patronage at the Proposed Project. Route 221 connected to the north with Alamo Plaza in Alamo and to the south with the San Ramon Transit Center. Route 221 also served Monte Vista High School, Diablo Road, Camino Tassajara, and Annabel Lane. Route 221 traveled along Camino Tassajara from Sycamore Valley Road to Tassajara Ranch Drive. The closest stop to the Proposed Projects' sites was at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Tassajara Ranch Drive. Figure 2 presents a map of the former County Connection Route 221. Ridership information for this route was obtained from the CCCTA and is presented in Appendix C. Route 221 provided a limited weekday service schedule. The first scheduled stop began at 6:30 AM and the last scheduled stop was at 3:15 PM. Midday service was provided from 11:50 AM to 1:00 PM and ran only once per week to accommodate early school dismissals. There was no weekend service. An issue for the Proposed Projects would be whether any significant ridership would occur between the Camino Tassaj ara northern half of the route and the Crow Canyon southern half of the route. Essentially, a portion of Route 221 would have been broken in half with one or both halves extended to serve the Proposed Projects. Route 221 ridership trends by time of day reflected a high usage by students. The peak number of passengers served by Route 221 boarded during school dismissal times (2:59 PM and 3:14 PM). Figure 3 presents the average daily passengers per run. Often the reason afternoon school patronage was higher than the morning patronage was that parents dropped kids at school on the way to work, but were not available (working) to pick them up in the afternoon. A common reason expressed by many non-transit riders is that they need their car to accomplish other errands during their commute trip (trip chaining). Monthly ridership trends also reflected the route's heavy usage by students. Approved as part of County Connection's Winter 2004-05 Service Adjustments, the following changes will be implemented: • Discontinuing the 2:00 PM Wednesday-only"Select Service"trip("Select Service" operates only when schools are in session serving special early dismissal run) • Discontinuing the 2:34 PM trip • Shifting all remaining Route 221L trips be shifted to"Select Service"trips (only when school is in session) Budgetary needs ultimately led to a more substantial truncation of Route 221 service, including the portion near the Proposed Projects. 816446 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 1 - 9 CV rr � N `o ii � � iL fA a z Zr a 4 > AMPA sow .� :E r� 7 Y! H iH O N Via:: z 9 � 0 tltq m UOAU A " m E C6 +. Ch n cc -r Cc+ a c a+ ,� , o kn c, m ff� co a g 0 PW stn CD O'b 0 0 e � � m r "a TOO W � a U c d IJ Tit o All Aa1POA au0nr, t a Figure 3: Average Daily Ridership per Run on CCCTA Route 221 35 30 25 as 20 c 15 cc CL 10 5 0 , 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:15 AM 8:00 AM 2:00 PM 2:34 PM 2:59 PM 3:14 PM Run Start Times Source: Central Contra Costa Transit Authority(CCCTA),2004 County Connection also currently operates a number of bus routes focused on the Bishop Ranch Transit Center. Potentially one of these bus routes might be extended east on Crow Canyon Road to Camino Tassajara and the Proposed Project sites. Routes 960 B and C link Bishop Ranch to the Walnut Creek BART Station and Routes 970 B and C links Bishop Ranch to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. All of these routes provide direct access to job centers within Bishop Ranch by looping into individual site driveways. Details of these routings are provided in Appendix C-2. Appendix D presents a map of Bishop Ranch employment centers presented in. In theory one or more bus trips on these lines could be streamlined and extended to the Proposed Projects, subject to consultation with the entities sponsoring these routes. 1.3.2 BART Mode of Access To better understand transit trip making patterns in the vicinity of the Proposed Projects, BART mode of access data was evaluated. Since 1991, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has been providing BART with an evaluation model to assess the effectiveness of 21 different types of access improvements at each of BART's 39 stations. The background data collected for this study includes information on mode of access and residence location for each station In general, the site of the Proposed Projects is on the boundary where residents to the north are oriented to the Walnut Creek and Lafayette BART stations, and residents to the south are oriented to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. However, the BART data indicates that the Dublin Pleasanton BART station has a larger catchment area. This suggests that residents of the Proposed Projects would be slightly more oriented to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART stations. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 1 - 11 1.4 MARKET ANALYSIS As described in Section 1.2.3, potential commute bus patronage found the Proposed Projects would generate about 77 daily passenger trips per day(approximately 50 daily bus trips from the Proposed Alamo Creek Project, and approximately 27 from the Proposed Intervening Properties Project). Available bus service near the study area (Route 221) provides a limited weekday service schedule and is primarily school-related, rather than commuter oriented. In addition, only seven percent of BART riders at the Pleasanton, Walnut Creek and Lafayette Stations access the stations by bus. A new bus line or an extension of the existing County Connection service would need to be supported by a significant amount of new ridership. The Proposed. Projects' estimated daily transit trips (77 trips) may be insufficient to support these types of transit services. System-wide County Connection averages about 17 passengers per bus hour of service 2. The 77 projected Proposed Project riders could therefore support about four bus hours of service on an average weekday. While there is an existing BART transit demand, bus transit in general represents a very small share of the overall journey to work trips. Therefore, successful transit service concepts for the Proposed Projects may need to seek broader markets than single destination BART stations or a single Employment Center. In addition, transit access to the other attractions such as the new school, the senior assisted living center and other non-commute markets could also benefit from new bus service. 2 Discussions with Brandon Farley,senior Planner,Central Contra Costa Transit Authority,(925)676.1975. 516944 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 1 - 12 Chapter 2 PROMISING BUS SERVICE STRATEGIES The most effective transit service strategy will directly link the Proposed Project to major employment destinations and to regional transit hubs. Linkage strategies are described in the following section. Operational strategies and implementation are addressed in Chapter 3. 2.0 COMMUTE MARKET ORIGINS ANIS DESTINATION Residents of the Proposed Project are anticipated to have job locations dispersed around the region. The two major transit access points nearest to the Proposed Project are the Walnut Creek BART and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART stations. Both of these stations have frequent seven days a week 16 hour a day train service. The ACE Station also provides a commute period service but has a more limited frequency than BART service. The Walnut Creek BART Station is located about 15 miles from the Proposed Project and the Dublin/Pleasanton Station is about 10 miles away. 2.1 EMPLOYMENT DESTINATIONS The largest employment concentrations near the Proposed Project are the Bishop Ranch Business Park and the Hacienda Business Park. These two employment centers and the two BART stations therefore appear to offer the greatest commuter bus service patronage potential. An HOV lane will also help to provide travel time advantages for buses on the Contra Costa County portion of I-680 towards the Walnut Creek BART Station. Bishop Ranch is located about six miles from the Proposed Project and Hacienda Business Park is located about ten miles away. Bishop Ranch currently has about 25,000 jobs with the capacity increase to 38,000 jobs. Downtown Walnut Creek is another center for employment. It is located about 14 miles away from the Proposed Project. 2.1.1 Regional Transit Hubs Residents commuting to San Francisco from the Proposed Project will likely use the Walnut Creek BART Station, more than the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. The one way BART fare is less expensive from'Walnut Creek ($4.00 versus $4.70 for Dublin/Pleasanton) and the train service is more frequent from Walnut Creek and shorter (35 minutes versus 45 minutes for Dublin/Pleasanton). As discussed later, the feeder bus access times to BART would be slightly shorter for the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. 2.1.2 Residential Origins The Proposed Alamo Creek Project and the Proposed Intervening Properties Project sites are located on a total of 609 acres in Contra Costa County. The Proposed Projects would involve construction of two new residential projects located in the area south of Camino Tassajara between Hansen Lane and Finley Road. The Proposed Intervening Properties Project would 516444 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2605 Page 2 - 1 include construction of 377 single family residential units and 96 multi-family residential units. The Proposed Alamo Creek Project would include construction of 538 single family residential units, 71 multi-family residential units, and 124 senior housing units. In addition, a school with a capacity for 740 students and several soccer fields are also proposed. 2.2 MARKET DIMENSIONS Many market factors are important in addition to the origin and destination of a trip. Two key factors of importance in designing public transit service for the Proposed Project are the commute shift tinges and the "choice travel" nature of the Proposed Project commuters. A wide range of work shift schedules would be typical for the long distance commutes into San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley employment centers. The most promising capture potentials for public transit are the middle and late morning commutes. The early morning commuters typically experience less traffic congestion and less difficulty finding parking. Commute schedules for Bishop Ranch also range widely, with the peaks typically 7:30 am to 8:30 am and 4:34 pm to 5:34 pm. The transportation demand management programs at Bishop Ranch have been very effective with some employers offering extended day four day work weeks, 9-80 (nine days eighty hours over two week period), flex hours programs and other non typical work schedules. These diverse work shifts indicate the need to offer more than one or two peak commute period bus trips. For bus use to be viable, the bus service needs to provide timely and an adequate number of trips to and from work. Lastly, the high income nature of the commuters indicates the need for a high quality and convenient service in order to be successful in this marketplace. 2.3 BUS ACCESS OPTIONS AT THE PROPOSED PROJECTS SITES The local street system for the Proposed Projects are best characterized as contemporary subdivision design, with curvilinear streets and cul de sacs common features. Few of the local streets are continuous being designed to disperse and slow site generated traffic. The Intervening Properties circulation plan provides a single access point to Camino Tassajara at Shadow Creek Drive (Street A). Street A is the only site street that runs continuously the length of the Proposed Project and would be a logical street to run a bus. Alamo Creek's street system would have two access points to Camino Tassajara(Blackhawk Drive East and F Street). A senior care facility is shown located near the F Street access point. Casablanca Street roughly parallels Camino Tassajara about 704 feet to the south. and connects the Intervening Properties and the Alamo Creek developments. Casablanca Street would be a logical street to operate a fixed route bus service. 2.3.1 Flexible Route Option The nature of the Proposed Project Street system suggests that a flexible routing service would be the most effective means of catering to the likely market demands. This flexible routing option could either be reservation/subscription based or a demand response base route deviation concept. 516440 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 2 - 2 2.3.2 Fired Route Option #1 For fined route service with a terminus at the project site, a routing via the Blackhawk Drive East entry, Casablanca Road and the Shadow Creek Drive entry appears to be an efficient routing (Figure 4). The direction of the terminus loop (clockwise or counterclockwise) should favor the exit left turn onto Camino Tassajara that is signalized. This routing would run the buses mostly on major streets. The suggested fixed routing would provide service within a quarter mile for around half the residents of Intervening Properties. Most of the other half would be within a half mile, with a small portion having to walk 3,000 feet to a bus route. At Alamo Creek, approximately 50 percent of the residents would be within a quarter mile, 30 percent would be within a half mile and the remainder would have to walk up to one mile. In general most potential bus riders are willing to walk a quarter mile, and some are willing to walk one half mile. Very few bus riders are willing to walk more than one half mile, although bicycle access is viable for access distances over a mile. The circuitry of the street and sidewalk system and the high income nature of the market suggest that the one quarter mile distance is probably the maximum effective catchment area for fixed route bus service to the Proposed Project. Provision of bike lockers and/or racks at the Shadow Creek Drive school and near the Casablanca Street and Blackhawk Drive East intersection in Alamo Creek may help to expand coverage. 2.3.3 Fixed Route Option #2 Another option which may provide better local access would operate the buses into Intervening Properties via the Shadow Creek Driveway and then continue along Casablanca Street,A Street, Camino Tassajara, and F Street extending to the senior care facility then looping back to Casablanca Street (see Figure 5). For this route option, a more logical terminus would be located at the senior care facility to serve those with mobility limitations. This fixed routing would provide service within a quarter to half mile for 50 percent of the residents of Intervening Properties, within a half mile for 30 percent of residents and the remainder would have to walk up to one mile. At Alamo Creek, approximately 60 percent of the residents would be within a quarter mile, 30 percent would be within a half mile and the remainder would have to walk up to one mile. For Alamo Creek residents, this option would extend 0.13 of a mile further south and 0.33 miles further north than option#1. 2.3.4 Fixed Route Option #3 Rather than terminating at the senior care facility in option #2, a third routing option would be continue the route further south along A Street and terminate the at the Alamo Creek swim center (see Figure 6). This fixed routing would provide service within a quarter to half mile for 50 percent of residents within the Intervening Properties. Approximately 30 percent of Intervening Properties residents would be within a half mile and 20 percent would be up to one mile of the service. This option would also provide service less than a quarter mile for 90 percent Alamo Creek residents with a terminus loop near the center of the Alamo Creek project site. The remainder would have to walk within a half mile. This option would provide the best coverage to Alamo Creek at nearly the same cost as options #1 and #2 (shown in Figures 4 and 5). Depending on the type of bus to be operated, routing of this option on the local streets may not prove acceptable to the local community. 516990 ALAMO GREEK.AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILRUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 2-3 � Z w 4 * tt Ate. 0 W CX � o mi 16v- >Z CL _ D � X `*" 99 CDU Z < ° ul m z Z LU W ox Z MA Lu W p Q H zF 90 Z h F 0 � NS �. 08 � a Cd Z 2 w LU d LU U us ce tit CSG 0 g Zua w y .�d11 to z � UA 2 a offi � 4 2a � S. o � o Z r ski J407A VA GLn x rz � Z > ro ' z < O W h OG W LU i1. ° w C, w Z LL, Y ul W W m �1 1� 3 � � J Z 96 ■ 4091 F 2.3.5 Summary The best strategy for collecting computers within the Proposed Project will be influenced by phasing of development and occupancy, the size of transit vehicles and manifesting preferences of residents and employees who work at on-site facilities. Within the Intervening Properties portion of the Proposed Project, the routing along Casablanca Street seems clear. Deviations off of Casablanca Street would not be attractive to riders from Alamo Creek and the net ridership would probably prove to be lower for the more circuitous routing. The overall best geographic service concept within Alamo Creek is Option 43 with a terminal near the swim center. Option #3 provides a balanced and simple to use local coverage service concept for collecting Alamo Creek residents. The circuitous nature of the terminus routing typically would not be a problem, since it inconveniences virtually no through riders. It should be noted that Option 43 provides better coverage for Alamo Creek than for the Intervening Properties. 2.4 POTENTIAL SERVICE LINKAGE STRATEGIES Five alternative service linkage strategies were defined: ■ Strategy A-Walnut Creek BART Linkage; ■ Strategy B -DublinTleasanton BART; ■ Strategy C-Walnut Creek via Bishop Ranch; ■ Strategy D -Hacienda Business Park via Bishop Ranch and Dublin/Pleasanton BART; and ■ Strategy E - Bishop Ranch 2.4.1 Strategy A —Walnut Creek As shown in Figure 7, this service would start at the Proposed Project and travel to the Walnut Creek BART Station via one of three paths. Path 1 would use Camino Tassajara to access 1-680. Path 2 would use Sycamore Valley Road to access I-680 and Path 3 would use Crow Canyon Road and Norris Canyon Road to access 1-680. I-680 has HOV lanes north to Walnut Creek, which buses could use to bypass congestion. Running times between the Proposed Project and the Walnut Creek BART station are estimated as follows: ■ Path 1-40 minutes ■ Path 2-42 minutes ■ Path 3-48 minutes With the improved access to the Bishop Ranch employment area, Path 3 appears to be the most attractive of the three options. It would add eight minutes to the most direct travel time to the Walnut Creek BART Station. Path 3 would also provide commute options for BART patrons as well as Walnut Creek and Bishop Ranch employees. By maximizing the potential commute market, Path 3 would likely attract the most patronage. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 2 - 7 ALAMO CREEK & INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPRC>VEMENT STUDY gq +�-- Walnut Creek BART Legend �....s Alternative A- i •••••• Alternative A-2 • Alternative A-3 1 Bishop Ranch Project aac site ° Dublin/ Pleasanton Hacienda Stoneridge Mal! BARS' Business Park r� 1858 NOKrH NOT TO SCALE ru Figure 7 WRAP ALTERNATIVE A WALMUT GREEK BART 'Wilbur Smith Associates 51699MALTERNATIVES-10/11104 2.4.2 Strategy B — Dublin/Pleasanton BART Strategy As shown in Figure 8, the most direct path for this linkage is via Camino Tassajara to Dublin Boulevard. The routing would serve a portion of Hacienda Business Park on its way to BART. It is preliminarily envisioned to travel via Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive and Owens Drive. Should a resident(s) of the Proposed Project request a more convenient routing through the Hacienda Business Park, this preliminary routing could be tailored to be more responsive to their needs. A one-way trip time would be estimated at approximately 30 minutes. 2.4.3 Strategy C — Walnut Creek BART via Bishop Ranch Figure 9 presents the routing for this alternative. It would serve Bishop Ranch and the Walnut Creek BART Station via Crow Canyon Road, Camino Ramon, Bollinger Canyon Road and I- 680. The one way running time for this route is estimated to be 56 minutes. This would be eight minutes more than Strategy A's Path 3 service via Norris Canyon Road. An additional stop added at the Bishop Ranch Transit Center would add on another three minutes of travel time. The Transit Center stop would be desirable for Bishop Ranch riders, but would be an inconvenience to riders traveling to the Walnut Creek BART Station. 2.4.4 Strategy D — Hacienda Business Park via Bishop Ranch and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station Figure 10 describes the routing for this alternative. Buses would travel to the Hacienda Business Park via Camino Tassajara, Crow Canyon Road, Camino Ramon, Bollinger Canyon, 1-680, 1- 580, Hopyard Road, Owens Drive and terminate in a local service loop within Hacienda Business Park. HOV lanes are not planned for I-680 in Alameda County, so all the freeway travel would be in congested traffic. The one way running time for this route is estimated to be 46 minutes. 2.4.5 Strategy E — Bishop Ranch Shuttle As shown in Figure 11, this route would link the Proposed Project to Bishop Ranch via Crow Canyon Road. The one way running time for this service is estimated to be 30 minutes. Based on one way travel time of 30 minutes, hourly headways could be provided by one bus. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 2 -9 ALAMO CREEK & INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STUDY ..r.► BBC1 24 � —Walnut Creek BART Legend Alternative B Cw1w Bishop Ranch Project Site Dublin/ Pleasanton Hadendo Stoneridge Mall BART Business Park 1� teen NORTH NOT TO SCALE (/tR 1►,1► CIIdEERS Figure 8 WAVEAPS' r ALTERNATIVE B Wilbur Smith As$062tes DUBLIN/PLEASANTON BART 51 d99MALTERNATIVES—10111!(}4 ALAMO CREEK & INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STUDY saoi �¢ t _ _Walnut Creek �.. BART Legend _•�+■ Alternative C ver�d C-4 oe!d Bishop Ranch Project Site Dublinl Pleasanton Hacienda BART Business Stoneridge Mall Park r� h NORTH NOT TO SCALE P, 158a Figure 9 rwmw ALTERNATIVE C BISHOP RANCH -WALNUT CREEK BART Wilbur Smith.Assco)cciates 51 bego\ALTERNATIVES-10/11 too ALAMO CREEK& INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STUDY 24 ._Walnut Greek BART Legend .. Aitermative D ' any to t troYr.(p�an Ad Bishop Ranch Project 55D Site y° Dublin/ Pleasanton Hacienda Stoneridge Mail SART Business Park 188D1 NOK H ry NOT TO SCALP . 158 .rrxr.�. LAIFLRS Figure 10 ih rL araNFxs �iU�itirn ALTERNATIVE 0 �� BISHOP RANCH - DUBLINJPLEASANTON BART - HACIENDA Wilbur Smith Associates 516"MALTERNATIVES-10/11 IN ALAMO CREEK & INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT STUDY 2A -- Walnut Creek BART Legend •••�• Aiternative E 10"w r,.. w Bishop Ranch Project Site 4 Dublinl Pleasanton Hacienda Stoneridge Mall BART Business Park h N OWN NOT TO SCALE l$60 r. ss Figure 11 33 nawNW ALTERNATIVE E Wilbur Smith Associates BISHOP RANCH 616990\ALTERHAMVES-10/11/04 2.4.6 Summary Per review of each of the five base alternative service linkage strategies, Strategy k-3 (oriented to Walnut Creek BART) appears to present the most promising and well balanced service. This strategy would be able to provide some service to Bishop Ranch, effectively serve Walnut Creek BART patrons and would add only eight minutes to the shortest travel path. In addition, Strategy A-3 provides a non-stop service to Walnut Creek for maximum use of the median HOV lanes along I-680. In contrast, Strategy C (Walnut Creek BART via Bishop Ranch) would better serve Walnut Creek, but it would also add a total of 16 minutes to the shortest travel path. The added travel time would not be very effective at capturing high income commuters. Strategy D (Dublin BART/Hacienda Business Park via Bishop Ranch) would be the most promising linkage to the south as it would serve Bishop Ranch, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and some of Hacienda Business Park However, Strategy D would have high one-way travel tithes (around 50 minutes) and therefore not effectively serve Dublin/Pleasanton BART. Strategy B (Dublin BART via Camino Tassajara and Hacienda Business Park) would provide the best one-way travel time (around 30 minutes), but the potential backhaul or opportunity to serve non.-commute direction passengers would be poor. Strategy E (Bishop Ranch shuttle with no BART linkage) would also have a promising one-way travel time (around 30 minutes), but would not serve any of the BART station commuters. In addition, with ample free parking at Bishop Ranch, a new transit service would not be sufficiently supported from the Proposed Projects. Therefore, Strategy A-3 (oriented to Walnut Creek BART) offers the most effective service for the Proposed Projects. Table 7 on the following page presents an overview comparison of the different strategy options. Table 7 identifies for each of seven service option strategies: • {ane-way bus running times traveling between the Project Site and either the Walnut Creek or the Dublin BART station; • Total number of weekday peak direction bus trips (half morning inbound trips and half afternoon outbound trips); • Number of vehicles required to provide the peak period service frequencies (excludes provision of spare back up vehicles), • Qualitative assessments of linkages to key commute destinations; and • Qualitative assessments of potential to serve reverse direction peak con-imute demands destined from non Project residential areas to Bishop Ranch or Hacienda Business Park. 51090 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 2 - 14 o CL LiA c a O am a 40+ b C3 la W 92 � cn Ci N N r4 40 tr C 0 r ° > ' a � a m .• �� as 00 00 a aC oa p >. w - N ori acs o Soe -,rur 'ct «r cry v> , rn W. ate • � � C &. S MCL . ogw ca � "" O > > > > > CLz Aj se yy �«oj� E��,/ se E M. 0 y at, ell .8 "11 tll Fa t y O ..4 W C1d C} W U ..r CY;- Z i a0 ce 92L3 � � � 3Ut� � 3GZn, aaw � nc � te 61 ce X00 c� ad -12 m �` NLL Chapter 3 IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS This Chapter explores the substantial benefits of a new service or extension of existing services for the Proposed Projects and how best to implement the Walnut Creek service linkage (via Camino Tassajara/Sycamore) or the Dublin/Pleasanton service linkage (via Dougherty/Camino Tassajara). 3.0 NEW SERVICE For the new service, Strategy A-3 (service to Walnut Creek. BART via Crow Canyon and Norris Canyon Roads) offered the most promising and well balanced service of all the service options. In addition, Strategy D (service to Dublin Pleasanton BART via Bishop Ranch) was the most promising linkage that would serve Bishop Ranch, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and some of Hacienda Business Park despite the long one-way trip time. 3.0.1 Walnut Creek BART Service (Strategy A-3) The most promising service plan appears to be a fixed route service originating at the Alamo Creek swim center and running to Bishop Ranch via Camino Tassajara, Crow Canyon Road and Norris Canyon Road. The service would continue pass Bishop Ranch to the Walnut Creek BART Station via 1-580's HHV lane facilities. Travel times are estimated to be as follows, To Bishop Ranch ■ 25 minutes from Alamo Creek ■ 21 minutes from Intervening Properties To Walnut Creek BART ■ 48 minutes from Alamo Creek ■ 44 minutes from Intervening Properties To San Francisco Montgomery BART Station via BART ■ 88 minutes from Alamo Creek ■ 84 minutes from Intervening Properties Two buses would be required to provide viable service,with each bus making two peak direction trips during both the AM and PM weekday commute peaks. Tables 8 and 9 describe the proposed schedule. In the off-peak direction the buses could either run empty in the reverse direction or earn revenue with backhaul commuters between Bishop Ranch and BART. This issue will be discussed later in this section. The last two trips in the morning may also serve journey to school travel from the Proposed Projects. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3- 1 Table 8 Walnut Creek BART Service Morning Schedule Weekday AM Commute Peak Service Area BUS#1 BUS#2 BUS #1 BUS 42 Alamo Creek 6:00 AM 6:30 AM 7:20 AM 8:00 AM Intervening Properties 6:04 AM 6:34 AM 7:24 AM 8:04 AM Bishop Ranch 6:20 AM 6:55 AM 7:45 AM 8:25 AM Walnut Creek BART 6:40 AM 7:20 AM 8:10 AM 8:50 AM San Francisco via BART 7:20 AM 8:00 AM 8:50 AM 9:30 AM Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Table 9 Walnut Creek BART Service Evening Schedule Weekday PM Commute Peak Service Area BUS #1 BUS#2 BUS#1 BUS#2 Alamo Creek 4:10 PM 5:00 PM 5:50 PM 6:30 PM Intervening Properties 4:50 PM 5:40 PM 6:30 PM 7:10 PM Bishop Ranch 5:15 PM 6:05 PM 6:55 PM 7:35 PM Walnut Creek BART5:36 PM 6:26 PM 7:16 PM 7:56 PM San Francisco via BART 5:40 PM 6:30 PM 7:20 PM 8:00 PM Source: Wilbur Smith Associates This evening service schedule would also provide the opportunity to earn revenue in the off peak direction serving Bishop Ranch to BART passengers. 3.0.2 Dublin/Pleasanton BART and Hacienda Business Park Service The service strategy of operating buses to Bishop Ranch to Dublin/Pleasanton BART and to Hacienda Business Park is suggested to operate with two buses according to the schedule shown in Tables 10 and 11. Table 10 Dublin/Pleasanton Morning BART Service Weekday AM Commute Peak Service Area BUS #1 BUS#2 BUS #1 BUS#2 Alamo Creek 6:14 AM 6:44 AM 7:50 AM 8:20 AM Intervening Properties 6:18 AM 6:48 AM 7:54 AM 8:24 AM Bishop Ranch 6:44 AM 7:14 AM 8:18 AM 8:50 AM Dublin BART 7:00 AM 1 7:30 AM 8:35 AM 9:06 AM Hacienda Business Park 7:05 AM 7:35 AM 8:50 AM 9:11 AM San Francisco via BARTs 7:50 AM 8:20 AM 9:25 AM 9:56 AM Source: 'Wilbur Smith Associates 516994 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Pogo 3 -2 Table 11 Dublin/Pleasauton Evening BART Service Weekday PM Commute Peak Service Area BUS #1 BUS#2 BUS #1 BUS#2 Alamo Creek 4:05 PM 5:05 PM 5:50 PM 6:40 PM Intervening Pro ernes 4:51 PM 5:51 PM 6:36 PM 7.26 PM Bishop Ranch 4:55 PM 5:55 PM 6:40 PM 7:30 PM Dublin BART 5:20 PM 6:20 PM 7:05 PM 7:55 PM Hacienda Business Park 5:41 PM 6:41 PM 7:26 PM 8:16 PM San Francisco via BARTs 5:45 PM 6:45 PM 7:30 PM 8:20 PM Source: Wilbur Smith Associates The 46 minute travel time to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and the 51 minute travel time to the Hacienda Business Park would not likely be accepted by the commute market. The drive time by car via Camino Tassajara south to BART is much more direct. 3.0.3 Summary Rather than disperse investment of limited resources, it would be best to concentrate them into a high quality viable service suited to the high income "choice" nature of the Proposed Project's commute market. The most promising new service appears to be the Bishop Ranch/Walnut Creek BART service concept. 3.1 MODIFICATION OF CURRENT SERVICE The Walnut Creek BART service plan could be implemented by modifying County Connection Bishop Ranch service Route 960. Modification of Route 970 service could possibly connect the Proposed Project to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. It also should be nested that the Walnut Creek BART service plan could implemented by splitting the existing County Connection Route 221L(presented in Appendix C-1) but it is an unlikely option since the route has been truncated. 3.1.1 Route 960 County Connection operates two variations of this bus route. Version B operates between the Walnut Creek BART Station and Bollinger Canyon Road on 1-680, making a stop at the Danville Park and Ride Lot along the way. Bishop Ranch Route 9608 makes a large counter-clockwise loop serving employment centers as far north as Norris Canyon Road. Version C operates similarly, with the exception of entering Bishop Ranch at Crow Canyon Road, following a long zigzag path and then exits Bishop Ranch at Bollinger Canyon Road for its northbound trip on 1- 680. In general, the B route focuses on the serving southern part of Bishop Ranch and the C route focuses on the northern portion. During the morning commute period, Route 960E northbound service begins at 6:50 am and continues until 9:42 am, providing five trips. Route 9600 northbound service for the morning commute peak begins at 7:10 am and ends at 8:11 arn; providing three bus trips. Therefore, together these two routes provide 8:00 am peak period 578990 AL0.MO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILSUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 24115 Page 3 -3 northbound trips to Walnut Creek BART. Route 9600 orientation to the northern portion of Bishop Ranch lends itself more readily to integration with service to the Proposed Project. The difficulty of integrating needs of the Proposed Project with Route 9600 is that the 9600 buses would run empty from Bishop Ranch to the Proposed Project in the morning in order to get in position for service. Similarly, during the afternoon buses would run empty from the Proposed Project to Bishop Ranch in order to get in position for service. The most promising opportunities would be to start the first northbound 9600 bus trip from the Proposed Project rather than its current start at the Danville Park and Ride Lot. The first bus trip begins very early leaving the Danville Park and Ride Lot at 6:30 am. During the evening peak, the last trip of 960B may possibly be extended to the Proposed Project. None of these options would provide the quality of service at the desired commute times for the Proposed Project. 3.1.2 Route 970 Similar to Route 960, County Connection operates two versions of this route. Version B links Bishop Ranch to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station using a counter-clockwise loop to collect commuters within Bishop Ranch. Version C employs a clockwise loop within bishop Ranch and more directly serves the northern portion of Bishop Ranch. It would be difficult to restructure either of these two bus routes for an extension to the Proposed Project. 3.1.3 Summary Rather than modify current service, the best approach would be to design a new service that could also attract Bishop Ranch to Walnut Creek BART passengers and therefore help attract fare revenue and perhaps subsidy support. 3.2 VEHICLE NEEDS Large buses are typically opposed by residential neighborhoods. They are often perceived as dominating the streets and having very low passenger occupancies. However, large buses are more able to accommodate peak passenger demands, particularly those associated with schools. Large buses also offer a more comfortable smooth ride for passengers. Most passengers prefer the larger more comfortable buses and most neighborhoods prefer the smaller buses. The commute ridership from the Proposed Project is unlikely to require a full size 40 foot transit bus or over-the-road intercity coach. For service start up a medium size minibus or 30 foot coach is suggested (depending on the operator's fleet resources). Operating cost savings are typically not very significant between large buses and shuttle buses. Labor costs associated with the driver are essentially the same for the two different size vehicles. The County Connection paratransit vehicles might lend themselves to the needs of the Proposed Project. Some communities deploy small paratransit vehicles for specialized commute markets in the early morning and evening hours, when peak demands for paratansit services tend to be minimal. These vehicles are not designed for comfortable long distance freeway travel and therefore might not gain market acceptance. The paratransit vehicles also often have a stigma 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3-4 attached to them, which is unattractive to high income commuters. Therefore, use of paratransit vans is not recommended for the Proposed Project transit service. In addition to size of vehicle, the comfort level is also important for a choice ridership market. Desirably, the vehicles should be spacious, and to the extent possible have similar features as airport shuttle vehicles in terms of passenger comfort. A total of two vehicles would be required for the suggested service and a third would be needed as a back-up vehicle. 3.3 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Contra Costa County as the administrator of funds to support transit service to the Proposed. Projects would have two basic options for operations management. It could negotiate an agreement with CCCTA to operate the service or it could retain a private contractor for services. Contracting with neighboring public transit operators (LAVTA and Tri- Delta Transit) is not considered a viable option, as these agencies have limited private contracting abilities, particularly outside their own prescribed districts. It is important to note that it is envisioned to have an oversight committee which would include representatives from the Proposed Projects sponsors, local jurisdictions, and any other funding partners to assist in the management and funding of the new transit system. 3.3.1 County Connection As reflected by the recent reduction in Route 221 service, the market strength in the Camino Tassajara corridor is not currently sufficient to sustain regularly funded public transit services. This can change as development occurs and the market becomes stronger or as more funding becomes available to support marginal services. The Proposed Project will add population (and market) and will also add sales tax revenue for County Connection. At full occupancy 3,900 residents are anticipated. The most recent data for County Connection indicates that a population this size would provide funding to support about 0.85 buses or 2,300 annual bus hours of service, based on district-wide averages. Basically, the Proposed Project leads to revenue increases for County Connection to add 0.085 peak period buses providing 2,300 annual bus hours of service (nine bus hours of service per average weekday). However, minimum performance standards must be met for the service to be provided (boardings per vehicle hour etc.). It is unlikely that these minimums will be met by trips generated by the Proposed Project. It should be noted that the suggested service strategy, would also serve travel demands from the Walnut Creek BART to Bishop Ranch and therefore may meet minimum thresholds for County Connection service. Appendix E describes County Connection's adopted policy for service expansion. The policy with respect to commute service improvements is as follows: "Priority will be given to fully paid costs including capital. Second priority to fully paid operating and lost opportunity cost, third priority to fully paid operating cost, and fourth 51674Q AL4MO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3-5 priority to partially paid operating cost only if it is determined by the Board that the overall community benefit justifies an investment of CCCTA funds," Current operating costs for County Connection fixed route services using full size buses are slightly more than $80 per vehicle hour of service. Operating costs for the proposed smaller minibus vehicles should be slightly less than for the full size buses. $80 per bus hour for minibus operation is suggested for budgeting purposes. 3,3,2 Private Contractor The new service could be contracted with private bus operators. A number of taxi and airport shuttle operators provide services in the vicinity of the Proposed Project as well as some general bus service contractors. Typically, the costs are lower contracting with private operators as well the sponsor has complete control over policies and service. Costs for private contractor provided services generally run in the range of $40 to $50 per hour. However, subsidies for vehicle acquisitions or operating costs are not available for privately contracted services, separate from public transit sponsored services. In addition,privately contracted services typically do not have the backup buses and drivers necessary to provide reliable service. 3.4 ADA COMPLIANCE The Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) requires that fully accessible door to door service be provided to complement regular fixed route services. An exemption to this requirement is provided for commuter services. The Senior Care Center in Alamo Creek would likely be served by County Connection's paratransit services. The costs of these paratransit services would likely be covered by the increase sales nixes generated by the Proposed Project's residents. County Connections obligations are strictly limited to providing paratransit services to areas it serves with fixed route bus services; however, since they will be receiving added sales tax revenue generated by Proposed Project residents they would also be pressed to extend paratransit services even if fixed route services are not extended to cover the Proposed Project. 3.5 PHASED IMPLEMENTATION Key features of the implementation plan include: • Service and Management Phasing Strategy; • Marketing and Fare Plans; and. • Resource Investment Plan. 3.5.1 Service/Management Phasing Strategy Particularly during the early stages of project occupancy, the transit market for the Proposed Project is likely to be limited. Therefore, it is suggested that a minimal initial service should be implemented with the opportunity to expand to meet manifesting needs. An incremental implementation approach is recommended for consideration. Full implementation early in the development of the Proposed Project would likely be deemed a transit service failure as the 516990 ALAMO GREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3 - 6 buses would have very low usage. This could lead to abandonment of the service before the market has ripened. The details of the phasing plan need to be coordinated with phased construction and occupancy of the Proposed Project. A three phase process is recommended. 1. Start-up service implementer) as either vanpool or maxi-taxi service, depending on the ability to find a vanpool driver; 2. Project shuttle bus service operated by private contractor; and 3. Long term integration into County Connection service network. A shuttle operation will not be cost effective in the early year(s) of project occupancy. Vehicles would operate virtually empty. Thus, the first phase rideshare efforts should focus on finding a vanpool/shuttlepool driver and subsidizing the scheduled vanpool/shuttlepool service (probably directly to BART station, but perhaps with Bishop Ranch stop). The service could utilize the I- 680 HOV lanes and BART HOV parking preferences. The service is envisioned to operate on a regular schedule with both subscription and checkpoint type stops at key points along the route (somewhat similar to point deviation or flex-route operations). This service should commence as early as possible (assessed at no later than occupancy of 300 units). Depending on ridership success of this service and survey of riders, a regular shuttle bus service should be established (estimated as occupancy of 600 units). If service is deferred until full occupancy of the Proposed Projects, travel habits will become established. Experience has shown that it is more difficult to change established travel habits than to attract new residents when they move-in. If a driver for the vanpool/shuttlepool cannot be found, contract service with a local taxi/van operator is recommended for this initial service. The recommended shuttle operation consists of the Walnut Creek via Bishop Ranch service from the Proposed Project site. It schedule is described in Tables 3 and 4. Essentially four trips would be provided during both commute peak periods in the peak direction of travel. Shuttle stops are proposed as follows: Alamo Creek Development • Swim Center • E Street at southwest corner of elementary school • A Street intersection with F Street Intervening Properties Development • Casablanca Street intersection with A Street Bishop Ranch • Norris Canyon Road near Crow Canyon Road 516990 ALAMO GREEK ANIS INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2O05 Page 3 .7 Walnut Creek BART If funding support can be obtained from County Connection or Bishop Ranch other shuttle stops might be added as follows. • Knolls Creek Road and Casablanca(Wendt Development); • Camino Tassajara middle school; • Crow Canyon Road near Camino Tassajara; • Crow Canyon near Dougherty Road; • Crow Canyon near Canyon Crest Drive; and • Camino Ramon near Crow Canyon Road. ADA compliant passenger loading areas (minimum 8 foot deep pad for loading wheelchairs) with small shelters would be provided for the morning direction passenger loading bus stops. Shelters are only needed for waiting passengers and not for alighting passengers, but ADA compliant paved areas are needed for both directions of travel. If funding support cannot be obtained from Bishop Ranch or County Connection, the Proposed Project shuttle could operate with Bishop Ranch as a stop option. In the morning if no riders indicate a destination at Bishop Ranch the shuttle could directly to Walnut Creek BART. A louver cost transit service option would be to provide three peak direction bus trips during the morning and afternoon commute periods rather than the proposed four trip service. This reduced investment might lend itself to the transition between the vanpool (300 to 600 dwelling unit project occupancy)to the 1,000 to 1,400 Project Build-out dwelling unit occupancy. 3.6 MARKETING AND FARE PLAN The service is envisioned as free fare for residents of the Proposed Project. If additional revenue could be achieved by opening the service to employees of Bishop Ranch this opportunity should be explored. Presently the Bishop Ranch Transportation Centre offers free rides on County Connection Routes 960 (Walnut Creek BART) and 970 (Dublin/Pleasanton BART). It is plausible that Bishop Ranch might also subsidize the Proposed Project's backhaul reverse direction commute between Walnut Creek and Bishop Ranch), which coincides with the Bishop Ranch peak commute direction. It is also plausible that Bishop Ranch might provide a per rider equal subsidy for riders from the Camino Tassajara/Crow Canyon travel corridor commuting to Bishop Ranch. Pare identity cards would be needed to confirm employment at Bishop Ranch. Open ridership from non Bishop Ranch non Proposed Project residents would be difficult to manage and therefore is not recommended. The minimal fares potentially derived from non- eligible riders would be small and not worth the problems related to fare collection and management. As long as capacity permits on the vehicles, minor abuse of eligibility should not be enforced. This policy of accommodation would help the corridor minimize use of private vehicles and therefore achieve one of the key objectives of providing the Proposed Project transit 516994 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3-8 service. Should these demands prove to be substantial, County Connection would likely extend service to the corridor. If the service is integrated with the regular County Connection service or is operated under contract by County Connection, TransLink and regular fare collection and administration could collect fares from non project residents. The marketing plan consists of four elements. The shuttle vehicles are recommended to have the Project's name painted on it or some brand identity tied to the Proposed Project(e.g. "Hopper"). The vehicle also should remind riders that the service is free fare. The bus stops would be visible reminders of the service and would include service information, desirably including real time schedule information. A welcome-wagon program is recommended that includes information on the shuttle service. Lastly, the residents are likely to be very linked with the internet and a neighborhood oriented website is recommended to describe the transit service along with other rideshare opportunities. An annual budget of $4,000 is proposed to develop, print and distribute service information to residents and to coordinate with welcome-wagon and other marketing opportunities. 3.7 RESOURCE INVESTMENT PLAN Costs for public transit services are typically categorized into reoccurring annual operating costs and into capital costs. 3.7.1 Annual Operating Costs The ultimate service involving two shuttle buses operating 250 weekdays on average annually for 8 hours each daily would total 4,000 annual vehicle hours of operation. At an estimated cost of $40 per vehicle hour of operation for privately contracted shuttle service this would total $160,000 annually. At $80 per vehicle hour for County Connection service the cast would be $32.0,000 annually. For the start-up vanpoollshuttlepool service, the costs would involve coverage of insurance, fuel, communications and other operating costs as well as for three vanpool vehicles. To encourage volunteer drivers the coverage of the costs should be generous, but not so high as to be considered income. Lease of vanpool vehicles is estimated to amount to $1,300 per month and cover insurance, maintenance and depreciation. Another $500 per month is estimated for each vehicle to cover fuel and miscellaneous costs. Drivers would be allowed to use the van on weekends as extra incentive. If volunteer drivers cannot be found for the vanpools, contract services with taxi van service are recommended. Table 12 summarizes the annual operating costs for the seven service strategy options as well as for the suggested start-up vanpool service. It shows the costs for six daily bus trips and for eight daily bus trips. Caption A-3, the recommended option, is estimated to cost approximately $320,000 annually to operate. An annual budget of $4,000 is suggested for marketing. The marketing budget would cover the development, printing and distribution of service information to all residents on an annual basis as well as marketing coordination with welcome-wagon and other programs. 516990 ALAMO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2405 Pege 3-9 w p aC7 UC3 OC) 00 t S tt} VA S C3G D CSO cN tl"� Ch V1 tT u"a CJ1 M V) ;n kn Ch V) Cn 14T U to N `C7 v d Cha aC? C� aaC> aaaaa s» p m a s C7 C> a G a a a O C> .d: a CC C7 C5 a a C7 a 0 G7 a C7 a s 'c3' rn et cn 'ct rn t'V •�t "�' Cd C7 C:7 a O a a 0 C, 0 a C a C> aE O a a a CO a 0 a a a 1= a C5 a ua a 0 C;7 C7 C) C� C> C7 + � G/� � � t`• I'`' h� C� �0 h C` ro C'� C'� r� CTS � R1 +"" rrnr� r- 00WnWnv-, r- ter° . G5 en cwt rn N rn N -a �, en rn tv rn rt 0p E� fpse E 0 I Al to-- C> 0 o•-CaaaaoaoaCSa a 0 •� �+ a Cs C> a a a Ca C3 C3 a c0 a a c;> a� rau .^� C � � '�' r�•i •c�• c*i rn rn rn tv ri ri cn cri <»i c�i �s `�d � •' � � � � � r+^s •d- cn rn rn rh N cn crs cn cn cn cn - � � � ` 00 tC A N �.. 0 Hat •� � � > .� a C> Csa000aCscaaCa 0 ,,,, � �, a r C� oaaccoC, aCac+ c }}al1 � c� acoe� acccac� cc ' cap (� CJ rL 8i 69 69 •f'S > + C C7 aC7CsaC> aflaaC+ C> a aaadC5C7C5C7C+ aC+ a C cd iw Q7 67 + '.4 C (Al U ro C> C> C77 a Cs a a 0 a a a a o t0 0 a C� a s a C3 a CS a a a C> Ca a a C F a C? a 5 CS C C C'+ CS C3 C7 CS C; Cy a C7 C; C.� C+ kn O d1 + a N "t N M'rC J r C14 CL " ~ ':.5. C9 ai rn N M N M rq rn CV rn C•V rn CV 0 cd © V 4 w �Q w at i., CCt - 0 0 --4 rS ri 4 r d � WUUtaaLT� nCL �a 0 z < L 3.7.2 Capital Costs Costs associated with establishing the recommended the transit service would include the costs of the vehicles. Three shuttle vehicles are recommended at an average cost of $70,000 and average life of six years. For start up service, three vans should suffice for the van service. These vans are estimated to cost about $35,000 apiece, but often are leased for about $1,300 per month. If contracted out, the vehicles would be included in the overall contract and would not be a separate cost item. Table 12 describes the annualized vehicle costs for the service options. 3.7.3 Funding Public transit subsidy funds for operating costs and for capital costs are fully used and would not be available for the Proposed Project service unless it were operated as part of County Connection's regular public transit service. Some funding participation might be possible from Bishop Ranch. It is doubtful that residents would want advertising on the buses or shelters and it is unlikely that this advertising would yield significant revenue. 3.8 POTENTUL BENEFITS The recommended service strategy is ultimately forecast to serve 30 to 40 passenger trips during each peak commute period (between 60 and 80 riders per day) on an average weekday. Trips to BART are estimated to account for 75 percent of these total trips with the remainder oriented to Bishop Ranch. Approximately two thirds (20 to 30 passengers) are estimated to ride during the peak commute hour in each peak period. On an annual basis the total patronage is estimated to be 17,500. Based on 4,000 vehicle hours of annual service, this translates to 4.4 passenger boardings per vehicle hour. County Connection's system-wide average is about 17 passengers per vehicle hour of service. The higher productivity is achieved in more densely developed portions of the service area and includes school and other trip purposes. Productivity of the Proposed Project's transit service would also increase if employees traveling to Bishop Ranch would use the reverse peak direction bus trips for their commute needs. At an annual cost of$320,000, the eight bus trip(four in the morning and four in the afternoon) would translate to an average subsidy cost per passenger trip of$16.62. The lower investment six bus trip service strategy would result in an average subsidy per passenger trip of$12.47 (if it could attract the same ridership level as the eight bus trip strategy). The average subsidy cost per passenger boarding on County Connection bus service currently is about $3.20. Table 12 summarizes total annual operating and capital costs for the service options. The total annual subsidy covering capital and operating costs is estimated to be $357,000 for the eight bus trip option and $277,004 for the six bus trip option. At the Project Build-out occupancy of 1,396 dwelling units (including senior housing), these annual subsidy cost would amount to $256 for the eight bus trip option or$ 198 for the six bus trip option. These costs on a monthly basis would be $21.35 for the eight bus trip option and $16.50 for the six bus trip option. 516940 AL4MO CREEK AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3 - 11 On the basis of 1.1 persons per car during peak commute hours, the typical vehicle trip savings associated with 44 commute period passengers would be 36 cars for each commute period and about 24 ears during the peak hour of the commute period. 516"" ALAMO CREEK.AND INTERVENING PROPERTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS STUDY WILBUR SMITE{ASSOCIATES FINAL REPORT MARCH 2005 Page 3- 12 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Mens of Transportation to Work BART Mode of'Access `i \° vol (4,0 o m a a n n a n \ n n n c OCs t O M t� C> C y cCs try C 6 eY C o Ca b ty C C C00 d rN G �r O as O h. at 00 N V C? N c 1 "'" p C � why CS C tom` t��' t� "tet ry �.y � C{ CS qy + p o `th C✓ C: C C:7 C C S ry' C C7 "" tip h C Ca .Ci Cs d 600 w NO c o n o C7 Q00 CYwo M C7 C C7 © ..K C7 C5 6 6 C5 Y� � a c o \ \ g \ \ o 0 o c a o cs 00 [,� �.. `°., `ate a, o•., a, b. a. 4,, � c. �, �. �. �, y� tiC tiC} C v1 OC C^ re} C5 0 C^1 C: C7 ryj O 0 C 00Q � GL et C!] UO � M C tU C tr Sir CL 41 ce O � `� C7 �y N to n Cw 4z~ H goFrn Appendix A-2:Mode of Access for BART Patrons near Proposed Project Sites Dublin Pleasanton Station Mode Number Mode Share Car 312 90% Transit 28 8% Bicycle 7 2% Walked 1 0% Total 348 100% Lafayette Station Mode Number Made Share Car 305 i 88.2% Walked 20 j 5.8% Transit 19 5.5% Motorcycle/Moped 2 � 0.6% Total 346 100% YYYYYYY�IIYY�rY®1��� 1ir�I�.IY�Y�r�I Walnut Creels Station Mode Number Mode Share Car 336 79.8% Walked 47 11.2% Transit 29 6.9% Bicycle 8 1.9% Taxi 1 0.2% Tota 421 100% IYWY�IIIIYYrr.�.IlY��ll. - - IIILYYrr��llll All Study Area Stations Mode Number Mode Share Car 953 85.5% Walked 68 6.1% Transit 76 ; 6.8% Bicycle 15 1.3°la Taxi ( 1 0.1% Motorcycle/Moped 4 2 0.2°l0 Total 111 100% YrYYrrr�l��YI - i uY�rl�.rl�irl Source:Wilbur Smith Associates, 1998 APPENDIX B Vehicle Trip Rates Vehicle Trips Person Trips Transit Trips Appendix.B-1:Vehicle Trip Generation Rates-Alamo Creek and Intervening Properties Proposed Alamo Creek Project Vehicle Tris 1 Land Use No.of Dwellin .Units In Out Total Sin le Family Residential AM Peak Hour 679 0.25 0.75 1.00 PM Peak Hour 7 0.65 36 1.01 Daily Total 679 4.785 4.785 9.57 Multi-FarnEy Residential AM Peak Hour 124 0.08 0.43 0.51 PM Peak Hour 124 0.42 0.20 0.62 Daily Total 124 3.32 3.32 6.64 Senior Housing AM Peak Hour 120 0.04 0.02 0.06 PM Peak Hour 120 0.10 0.07 0.17 Daily Total 120 1.075 1.075 2.15 Proposed Intervening Properties Project Land Use Vehicle Tri s No.of Dweltin Units in Out Total Sin le Family Residential AM Peale Hour 377 0.25 0.75 1.00 PM Peak Hour 377 0.65 0.36 1.01 Daily 377 4.785 4.785 9.57 Multi-Family Residential AM Peak Hour 96 0.08 0.43 0.51 PM Peak Hour 96 0.36 0.19 0.55 Daily 96 2.93 2.93 5.86 Source:Trip Generation at Buildout Full-Range Affordable housing Alternative-Revised.Tan 20,2004 (1)Alamo Creek EIR Appendix F of the Draft EIR for the Integrated Project(DEIR),August 11,2000 Appendix B-2: Vehicle Trips - Alamo Creek and Intervening Properties Proposed Alamo Creek Project No.of Vehicle Tris 1 Land Use Dwelling Units In Out Total Sin4e Famil Residential AM Peak Hour 679 170 509 679 PM Peak Hour 44I 44 Daily Total 679 3,249 3,249 6,498 Multi-FamilyResidential AM Peak Hour 124 10 53 63 PM Peak Hour 124 52 25 77 Daily Total 124 412 412 823 Senior Housing AM Peak Hour 120 5 2 7 PM Peak Hour 120 12 8 20 Daily Total 120 129 129 258 Total Pr osed Alamo Creek Pro'ect AM Peak Hour 184 565 749 PM Peak Hour 505 278 783 Dally 3,790 3,790 7,579 Proposed InterveningPropertles Project No.of Vehicle Tris 1 Land Use Dwelling Units In out Total Single Family Residential AM Peak Hour 377 94 283 377 PM Peak Hour 377 245 136 381 Daily 377 1,804 1,804 3,608 Multi-F!E!EX Residential AM Peak Hour 96 8 41 49 PM Peak Hour 96 35 18 53 Dail 96 281 281 563 Total Pro osed Intervenin Pro ernes Prrr'ect AM Peak Hour 102 324 426 PM Peak Hour 280 154 434 Daily 21085 21083 Combined Proposed Projects No.of Vehicle Tris 1 Land Use Dwellft Units 7 In out Total Single Family Residential AM Peak Hour 1,056 264 792 1,056 PM Peak Hour 1,056 686 380 1,467 Daily Total 1,056 5,053 5.053 10,106 Multi-Family Residential AM Peak Hour 220 18 95 112 PM Peak Hour 220 87 43 130 Daily Total 220 693 693 1,386 Senior Housing AM Peak Hour 120 5 2 7 PM Peak Hour 120 12 8 20 Daily Total 120 129 129 258 Total Combined Proposed Projects AM Peak Hour 286 889 1,175 PM Peak Hour 785 432 1.217 Dally 5,875 5,875 11,750 Source:Trip Generation at Buildout Full-Range Affordable Housing Alternative-Revised Jan 20,2004 (1)Based on vehicle trip generation rates derrived from the CCTA Model and Alamo Creek ETR Appendix B-3: Person Trips-Alamo Creek and Intervening Properties Proposed Alamo Creek Project No.of Vehicle Person Trips Vehicle Mode Land Use Dwelling Units Trips t7> AVO by Vehicle Share% Total No.Person Trips Single Family Residential AM Peak Horn' 679 679 1.05 713 PM Peale Hour 679 686 1.05 720 Daily Total 679 6,498 1.05 6,823 92.5% 7,376 Multi-Family Residential AM Peak Hour 124 63 1.05 66 PM Peak Hour 124 77 1.05 81 Pa4y Total 124 823 1.05 865 92.5% 935 Senior Housing AM Peak Hour 120 7 1.05 8 PM Peak Hour 120 20 1.05 21 Dail Total 120 258 1.05 271 92.51% 293 Total Proposed Alamo Creek Project AM Peak Hour 7491.05 787 PM Peak Hour 783 #1.05 1.05 822 Daily 7,579 7,958 92.5% 8,604 Propased Intervening Properties Project No.of Vehicle Person Trips Vehicle Mode Land Use Dwelling Units Trips le AVO by Vehicle Share% Total No.Person Trips Sin le Famil Residential AM Peak Hour 377 377 1.05 396 PM Peale Hour 377 381 1.05 400 Daily 377 3,608 1.05 3,788 92.50/0 4,095 Multi-LEE&Residential AM Peak Hour 96 49 1.05 51 PM Peak Hour 96 53 1.05 55 -Daily 96 563 1.05 591 92.50/o 639 Total Proposed Intervene Pr ernes Project AM Peak Hour 426 1.05 447 PM Peak Hour 434 1.05 455 DadY 4,170 1.05 4,379 92.50% 4,734 Combined Proposed Projects No.of Vehicle Person Trips Vehicle Mode Land Use Dwelling UnitsT Trips til AVO by Vehicle Share% Total No.Person Trips Single Family Residential Daily Total 1,056 ]0,106 1.05 10,611 92.5% 11,472 Multi-Family Residential -Day Total 220 1,386 1.05 1,455 92.5% 1,573 Senior Hmsm Daily Total 120 258 1.05 271 92.5% 293 Total ComhinedLProposed Projects Daily 11,750 1.05 1 12,337 92.5% 13,338 Source:Trip Generation at Buildout Full-Range Affordable Housing Alternative-Revised Jan 20,2004 Source:Census 2000 Summary File 3(SF 3)-Sample Data Based on six census tracts adjacent to the Proposed Project sites. (1)Based on vehicle trip generation rates derrived from the CCTA Model and Alamo Creek E1R (2)Assumes Average Vehicle Occupancy(AVO)of 1.05 per vehicle. Based on the AVO for six census tracts adjacent to project area (3)Assumes a vehicle mode share of 92.5 percent.Based on the journey-to-work data for six census tracts adjacent to project area. Appendix B-4: Transit Trips Proposed Ala o ree rc►jects Transit Trips transit trips Bus trips to that are Bus Total bus Transit Trips (97%of all BART(7%of (4%of an demand(Bus No.of Person (mode share of transit trips are all rail trips are transit trips to Bart and Land Use Units Trips(r) 5.37%)�) rail)(3) bus)(4) are bus) Bus to Work) Single FamilZ Residential Daily Total 1 679 7,376 396.1 383.9 26.9 15.8 42.7 Multi-FamilyResidential Dai Total 1 124 935 50.2 48.6 3A 2.0 5.4 Senior Housing Daily Total 120 293 15.7 15.2 1.1 0.6 1.7 Total Pto need Alamo Creek Pra ct Fatly 1 8,604 462.0 447.8 1 31.3 1 19.0 50.3 Proposed InterveningProperties Project RaHMART Transit Trips transit trips Bus trim to that are But Total bus Transit Trips (97%of all BART(7%of (4%of all demand(Bus No.of Person (mode share of transit trips are all rail trips are transit trips to Bart and Land Use Units Trips(r) 5.37%) 2 ran)(3) bus)(l) are bus) Bus to Work) SinLie Family Residential Daily 377 4,095 219.9 213.1 14.9 8.8 23.7 uld-FamilyResidential Dai 96 639 34.3 33.2 2.3 1.4 3.7 Total 117yposed Interven ing Properties Pro act Davy 4,734 254.2 246.4 17.2 10.2 27"4 Combined Proposed Projects RaHMART Transit Trips transit trips Bus trips to that are Bus Total bus Transit Trips (97%of all BART(7%of (4%of an demand(Bus No.of Person (mode share of transit trips are all rail trips art transit trips to Bart and Land Use Units Trips o) 5.37%)0) ran)0) bus)(+) are bus) Bus to Work) Sin le Family Residential Daily Total 1 1,056 1 11,472 616.0 597.0 41.8 24.6 66A Mulb-Farmly Residential Daily Total 1 220 1,573 84.5 81.9 5.7 3.4 9.1 Senior fiousin Daily Total 120 293 15.7 1 15.2 1 1.1 0.6 1.7 Total Combined Proposed Ihn ecce PU 13,338 716.2 1 694.2 40 1 28-6 1 77.2 Source:Carus 2000 Summary File 3(SF 3)-Sample Data Based on six census tracts adjacent to the Proposed Project sites. (1)See Appendix B-3 (2)See Appendix A-1 (3)See Appendix A-) (4)See Appendix A-2 .......... . ...._--- APPENDIX C County Connection RTE 221 Existing 960 BIC and 97010 Routes Route 221L The reduction of service from the farmer Route 221 to the neve 221L provides only one daily round trip in the peak commute direction to Walnut Creek BART. The morning trip begins at Bollinger Canyon Road and Annabel Lane (west of Bishop Ranch) at 6:30 am preaching the Camino Tassajara/Crow Canyon Road intersection at 6:42 am. The bus goes as far north as the Danville Boulevard and Alamo Plaza, traveling via Sycamore, San Ramon Valley Road and Green Valley Road. The frequency of service and complications reconnecting segments of the route, suggests that modification of Route 221L isnot a very attractive option. d L 6Li h • 1 ap a 'C pr �r w ai W i r�r 0 P L Wl 06 06 .�'•� �o M b 6 N 6 ch 0 m � � �y :�'•� "Ch "� N � h � QCs �: G N G ,CL �•y ` SCS op 6 F tib 06 06 cc cc h � � •`" M 6Li G � r►y � aE•v N N ~ fir Q q 0 L 'rn � V fn r C;6 x ;> ' Soll ingger Canyon ltd 4P Bishop Annah .' e� �t : ` Ir31ia41uarp Ralarscah9 taasiA 1 SAS U47 63;m , � 6=0 V 4 6ic«1tM�almr�aitryrcar9 1 C' 5.58 For ase i,sae uninB Crow 6,50 f.*sz '7.02 7g :"u3�4 '- 04"Wor F4d pkeem a seethe slily ?sOS 7ti8 72S'7t47 7S71 7 4 � iy1�WpRyytsaw�' r 40M 4040� Wl '407, mk*Wxvp E;C7 61-to # ltabkll 8 n6sl67 rM: aus: �c Mslrtlsacl�� ��Rsraleks ttMr«vipwl+raar•- thtatl t Aq . .-n z 6.29k -61390 6112 sn,"114 iFgW 8.868 Bim. G"4 :310 7:32 «3:'t 7mv '7#42' 77104 7m, 7p 7112 7VM9 I : ma 7*m 713 7'«281. 7:20 7:32, 7:84 7. 7r� 7t42 7!47cr+i7 '7",8 ' *mW 83cm vast. 73+88 7s4S 714'7 ?A% 7x81 7 71817' 7' 59 4K12 ' 72511 i SWO 842 #5:44 'tB1m oslm PAI 2 'aSt14 V117 z2v 68*0 8t".32 a '� a�T1� 6A C.' A047 V-00 ' "'04m 11;216 /ylyr,N®�4y i t: .44 ��qy�� �yyyp �pyyyy ,y�y� yy4ftne O"t iQ:=5RR �"r"815 '�6Mi 1MG *118 '^TOt 1^hal'4s" A 4 41" ' fib. Am" :, 4 1152'7: Sam •0 S*4 „?'L SY13 5 '5':117 -114" ' '112$ - '101M �"11128 als6a�'t'�, 11,1'18 GAR 6.10 :'137 11*3 ISi L"6? i.'"7 '!5381 BF' SA1� Q2'101 70E 71169 707 ?111 TnT` ?� ?'m ••�� r•••"" Tim•R^P.T GRx1'1RUI6C'k.1'.s1m thx111 n am C=A aC1<od%A al rssprr mum only Ttaaa'sAr drn'1'Cxltlt 4".Srt,w WAth a s7lwMacwtaMham Wo t."tar Scim of CQ MnaCtkmC,W at wrolty wilOvin b to ' atnianutow. & X01'Dayrt Onlyr The 119ftws pcaah lish od in Cr-CTA AM LiphtTypo1aei1M#Rls1>t4Ms CvM+r inalr►P+aM1i r: =:imotalbim mind lures tha rvat To WcW*""6d&u OW 6aossenverr., n'W orrOdpote xwrvkv disrupticros:. but PM Dold'tyre Canoga bus ap orarSnm aft pleas"to ,we a Mppvuximastiams far rwrmsk, IM Dim must Coat!KolhSar m pride irow 7r1rJsk*or arriving trsuirm up Kits throw C2 triply.All timartrsbiiauc Ora X1Abj+ t0 brtwvaan"189 AM and 2 l►13r1+a wwrydas'y —h mr ;,k+«a"nd thq*r sa4:#Ir dulud gi*p sv- dump*waPlthrcmm ntltica. %um t8nw wrhan nevowwarye;. 1"iiatMop R'*nCh empioyoma ride FRSE vavtii9than Exprooss,Sar.Pass ixa u*d by tha Bishop PAmch "IcaM9r9e41pCvrtarCicsrA Cra�ri7�r a1mMra, T*ark ak 04". CAMgwh""W4 »mp Loot f a mcm ti 4t Min 7 { f s,a W hosed, �„ � lu's1mYs {¢¢1��. trus»rst EYtim`Nrl�rla. a-^ MiM•4yy Or i 0assx�lrw BART amd Ride r«semir«alc eraalal ' ,Lot u'S to � eisi/ms>ttr 81ix�1oax 1�r MWrknli • Bur. 9'topr ` }•y _ lUfftO*M11 Cir Park N Rid-a 10 1 Crow Canyon R4 Bishop Ranch Ji, WOO sats2 ..a.12 'Serving BNtaYIhapaatcli7 ueeinLbrcwast Gas am fims 7:59 7:St;l. 7AX : Canyon Ad 7,50 mr-servlciia,s nkag 15011ingur'Canyon nt1 � - �rAl� . ltec►+a Ret*� pieuaetNt alet,G•IM'taY +a«iiGmoss .� 4' + 400 ,,HAM 4WIR1. + iSaA2 *AS' , tS 600 60,4't 4iF490. 'Iflob 7 *,So 79"I:2 7,75 ?"S ta!q!� 7'.Sp 7 a delill; 970 ettraxyr,y a as« ; O �e 'Rsaa�xt wrar ** Camino. �'� c i`� '�' � aw+apauweay II Waft Own"* .1 6Matxvaraf�asprnen 6uwrrw arwrryaanrt ' "Ain �' AarrarYrp�� a ' waba+rra Bus Saiaps 700 ESAPIT '1CY t #M'�"•Milia }y.�,�'{�,Mt, W�tR bli �J Elisho a l-Ranch ! _ + 7 ata ► '` 7sgT 7:11 703 7116 Wtl) 7ZIO 7' .. qtr • " '7291 7= 7w 7':3"7^, '7:4'1 7sa "A6 7l�6 7�aO 742, 7153 Q 23 � °i4ir�1111smi�i�lMae�rll�ri aaZg, =30 3Ca8331 3taaiS .AW IWO!+ '3MXAl ftlo -A-.14. itaxx� 3".�i5� �' ,. .. "«&�` +11'3iY7 4:� a11�14 +VtiC17 -'a1A3flti•' Q:TIA �{."�•: . � +SMO' '5«10•: . 'tea 401 4W 4 5�1x Sa'L2. . a 'Mall, serving Bishop 5 6x271 ltl �1 1 Rte; 61i� : .&OGIffi; .*!C.!' 4105 SJC1& AMIX 4221 SI'm Slizz. . . Ranch Rising i11lrtsp ii cilety Onnyian,Rid , ploy rkl a FRS;:with an 'wwv**e ust11Q expre"'Aus'Pass IssundAwy the Bishqp ftrM+c h 0*61inger Ownyowad 'i"r41z1sp arr'tsMasn We"00 Gem the 9709. ■a.+napwwwna, 970B 970B c.aaalno'iitrrrlWtlrrti '�', ' - Camino flwwfaaxa ,e--w- Wl leanrtn lor i' Owhoop fRt: ruMw.M%."t. � �inna�ra;� �C#anwnura"Erxaw' w UART a*"MblfLn; iaaramn'ii „"- otr.rrt+ts+* }� BAMRYY[Yea i1fY#rOp -hiiih"p b. is Bus Stops 006 4Z Jib _ 970BMART DF blit/ ievs Arvto'ri E%dMnpw Canyon:Fid Bishop Ranoh 6:X 9 i#?AS C^a 47 i�'+O G!S1 6•.04 6.515 fi.. fl 7.391 "��ti+i "7 5 7-?IYO Shct6"V� ��yr� $t7i#7tt9kp 1�tldttCtl 0911,� 70D. 7-1 71.,x7 71" 7.237;.2V: 7;�2S, 7L29 71$1 TIM .�, using 04:01'it'1par ?�7rra�' 7a�EGt 1:1.4b 7=7 740 7.1511 7.,53 71815 : 7,159 i5XII 1104 � Canyon Rd7 a Q AQ OT1 0,1 33:1f Oa t 8: 'r: 91.2s Way 0431 WOO Fort 1t�ci�a mingiYtf 81PtiAlF 0,47 a).A9 6:�T1 O:53: O*a5 $ 9401 0 0+f i"Svrnrs service lCk�'1 Rd v. a 3ixidi ARs! jk*zy lids Simi 8101 MIMS WHYE4,116 1. 4 4�EMSr' 4194 >1�77C1�- �i•F• 4*00 AIZZ 404. 4106 +',08 4:1$1 4114 41IL r1 4= 4".40 �4 *+100 2 4:P4 4~�6r 4w 4AO 4;*A46 4aa1+�4 4-$0 5210 -A 5:25' Bishop 7aCEZ4wr4 gyres 51110' S� 504 SOM S"xMU 5^1111 9:%A16 9a?!p 590 511 l" ,544,' Ado FREE�sin kwp iss 6112 ffi:14 WU 4LA R Or= Az24 2 6x?6 man !i3# 9i1s�NOS illiatJeC3 by ti7C !4i^,�YcogM1rich"1,rxrr'a5,n�rf}+. licar�c.�r+t'�r APPENDIX D Bishop Ranch Employment Centers V$0 iIYaRRpd. . s M w9�l�irr � , �" Emend��'� •� i„ z t q]P I F 1� •11'1�.MIIIMR�111 � � ri�w�ixrlat�c; wtw NOM :e � rr ,ice_... y� yy � i 11 ■.r 41 mob �WA�11 RMIIiY� Park MNYNIGMw 11Mf� wwrr all. 1YIYIgif ii tFMuo Kau" cold*ow lA 5 � W14. APPENDIX E County Connections Adopted policy for Service Expansion SUB C:'":'`: M1-Expansion b Apr l d 1991,CCCTA adoprted a Policy cast S�i.ce r�siora�orsm,='on meets whki Was germ aiza tam,and-Which ccmta iuzd four eiamt, s addming raraxi nizabo a of the=;isdnv. `a1 pig and " ccmu"I utiow r m=3b=wrsrt ,omi.p=f x rrr=e=a ..s for new sera ictus, and d=rinstratim P'o defmitto= In FY 2 ,tlae teams and Srhedxa ig(C&S)Committm=uesfrd that.s tair-P,=other look at the a s and dwdop a smarm ca'mprehgmideliues far 9 vix ,pa lon th would sot paimities and i 4uder definitions for erica d=rJa entr L The aec==tmdaticros btrzin are cta w=z wft CCCTAIs hfissicua S _' All new atm=" be bat to zhe producdviry.sada tls Cuataairzed im C=A's Produ v.my Standards 1 tbay for ww services. 3. All hew or i=pmved servsct requested by p rivaaw entities,shaU be fhBy subsidimdby the pdvaue_entity; ' subsidy atbould inabdt full suixi dy or AU opm=g am, and any I=oppurmmty coast" and mpital rmt t (if possible). The=vests sh&U be adjt=d at kaast biam umMy to=B=t the azmal cwt of providing tbr.sae�+rioe. 4. A11 now=vim s maximi=oppmiuuitivs for uata mining and mmaiaz deaadhmd arad uc m-productivz tivae and/or infies. S. AJI ww mrvi=aswmzs thr,avai ui of a ,g"iindz,whzrbw pdb&r- ox pjju'a ,and th availabOty of v ehi les and human reaau (ftve s)m cap m the S=-V1 without aae+ tively impacting mdsft=wizt. go new swvi---in any moo"daa"il be undmuk=bout adtpare toads to =ativw tax^smvicz lbr at is st our,f M yaw,or,in the case of liamit:d-tom cir=Woa,farthe times period main 5. Tho pfiodf= and as dons baric apply or3y to g==al public services, and not to apc' Wservice for AICA eBgibae ridms as providsai by L �, I. The p6orW s iistcd mow moogni=that itapovern-tu made it cme priw ty a=ay also"b=c&users it szothtr priority wea. (Lt, improves for maces smTing mmmu=may also b=eet the trot pc adcut) S. The priorhies belaw can in-.fade areatave approaches M ste-us..e provislon, including the use of vans,flee rotating;suaasc pfiicau servi�s,SUDMtu ran a t ,# ! ".., * , c (:Y rs-t :..a f! 't•#te :tx!, f; � r�.+ittF r }w'Pwv�1 t Y.#.,aE r gtt ! if## "� � :fe Y `€$ § l i§.;s•+�m.la P' x'!'..r; P ;r as r3iyt 4 ',aet,. »t.w .'1..}.,.yt :. :, r s-.. ,.«.=(tr §' } •.. :.# a :'s; t ;,}Pt, R 9' _t tti.�a. at :§} T t -<.! ,.+_.q�ta_.+t�; - `#,w# ',fr ;3tt i.: •.�- Y§sr i4tl.! # Y' Yra•!k#tYtkd Y13 {. ;(, Ft#Gri7 f.J3 i:1 M1+srl §4R.t'. }«t .lY x:+t kT#?4§:.. # "v ; ..! � ,,•,, ''a Fi !r•i,�ad k� •#+/ '.,s # -,+I r. H^1 :§ R Ort t!a i 1 I C7 #I7'.. !1 rtf 'rt41P 4.I... ■ :v t## #it ;1 !^irt•.R # §1 R'. ## :§#.t R�l71(:•:�y..n. i#t #, #R'--10t #'#i W.tt Y: t Et 'v4 ;kv 4 mr� .rt# Ylf:.. ,•�rttt#... ## y..a;x. ".Ri - t ..t ('w lxwF :Yt-'/ k + � t I`"1 ,4Y�•�.! J I§.r »s!1•id 01 "x "R;t Ibi '1rh 'M #�3YM.• }d # lt..rt !'��', #,°It .:a^'#!I►.d..:.-. a ... ''�w 'i§ a :..� a.+",�ti .r�8oflttx oatiN 0 y«yt: : .� t': ,eniyr ";�wy�+'.`k.: #9 .^'• wy #.t tXf' #t '.N;;-x,tt § :s:•- �!! .M.t -'.t!§, , '#/ .�, ...'1 #: w'x#, i iiti,P,1. w# at'�x -tf r •i :�iy: T4s`#^§ `.is..§: vf... t.. :i }t i..t at 1 ,t! '€'A t ,t ! ••«<,!` '§t#; 4S }nM h tii ;'.M a -..at i#t4.'.':^A. ti+. f ^+ 1 §.wu�iS'*t i 'if<N}♦ y' YC#a( t "«.f#t M 4kt:J.^.x lttf ''t}w r Erg}a J-11j,0 01-9 try h §..n.:4.. • yYPry#V# Y+rtak}}ya�t,_ ."•7#kt�+�",... �F `�we +Yr :sv t_Ytt. .,� s r#a(:iJa.« ^- ta�tr � ,,t.. tllF.e#_ §f ty Pa a s.' h .:§trt 1 • , wx Y qT #, (it':t{§«<#(.� rt,t ' '41w 1 4 T #r �*� rt[I! y'yl9! Y9t# I '♦ `.§ 'f ".rh f}':. Y' «lvvt#:,• }§«nf V'0 a.•W-1 1# 11 P."h } e #.. ;k#i! I!IFI} t#,.a :4E # •a'}tyy/#t{ '..t ". .ti. tltYY -v A w P.t `.iw"^:t# rt i �,! i 41T...:1 y#li!`il wa#I 'I � / " rrt of ;r}! # #...•.• }-•: # i f! #..# ««# t ti »# r#11 • ER :.}EI i rt -}xt;,� xt 4P%i) Y 1 w•}: y #, F { } wf i.4 #tlrt3.Hy 't k'!E # i! • # y !:i ,«wtrt£'.t t•:s!t4 # '�+# # t.f !i t# E# A♦ # f .•. ! Cb' ,«e)}, %' Q i } Y: .4. ,# «#�:'!..t}rr 4 r.+. Y:w". y Ia t:4 03 to IF !a! ! ').:r 4 ! . #. :.tax.f'! :9 ♦#I « t, .,v.§. P.- !.�+ },ya c ,# it P.«+ y1.._ P!#t } rt •1 :�. ! at,�' .0s y 4 #'I• a # t 9:t +t r 1 k :u' k .# , . }..#R # its:.. vs tai ;atkad f=orvhairit axe 70%. zv=qm=ceed tb t d .fit I==50%, m srmlat ;; ►: tapas,zmmE amatnts of qu=the>ndftiom of =TA, oftmpan=pr Nlaw Amda; "'save t yy x �s:&� 3=-Vjm 2d hicb wYYJl�, M w LRWUk �M � i#F ', 4Y new +raxgm ds sMs*m 4or bioh mbsidbe.by thm=qu or ans br.uewaWlt-CCCrA. by the CCCrA Boardof ==,mD==k2LPte. .. i" Adxltd' RMS ' ACT=d iMni $I tip WbiOb-'QpCrQ= =mold ,ady. ..ham. ate. 11 13 ti w 'S=-Am is Op=W 66 Senail pubUr.," uaft m=my bean loafti of aad° = it " 9081 cif s hCd OCMMIM CffCr:SM4=fit rSChiDO3s, TVA&D�1 � u��, rte; u�:�om �a.=�2t�car 40-ddc pwa&;peas, and,staims=dAhmWed rids as sit on.opmmr cards,TkvaSh.:pr r icnwve)m(ev=y thm ),is wM be furdw clams byinbmme,maUbd1ity of a vabidt to mgm tht rip,axe avail `a v&Ud dates Bcm L r 3itat do any of 110.following atm=adding,man vshi rrdr v=. • I=Fm=as tip uxa. Vista .per juin�srh�aaz�r. . Adds ti=(mot m=thaw ont hcuf)at the beginning or=d of rht day,or mid4sy by txwmffmg a ran, wbich would od=wist p out of s riw . Adds nw stgx along as tm g rmtc". 3 ju mutmz baterimt,zow orralomad l#v=rzu=without j.t +ardhs ngof the ram or xzdacxaag Sits =m o pitces. uske it nm&mVt Wwwmt h=45ing Aim wpm vW balm at-tic&=r:f=4=4 wi&t L'.7 istinj � d y� z , ,: •. wA d. 5: tam'!.L stfk= a.nm Mi ������yyyy... �jyy�y. y�rj,�J,{(y�(y ' - ■ tmdbg hams 6zf o9midm(beyond am h=)mdiw CIT law b8 ced an a "UyatW expi na ` ova which bm 4o end to sed=dag*=tf ==,m 45 . Adftg Smduy sem» Rol Ainrtlr imli ;;a; m to it amm p rodumivc by(wy am of tlum- ftDOW mg elms to deliver mm Imel of.amcm lmmprov*M pml'orjft*aact. 1'J a>~zaa a� its.�stlly rr aim Radkind xeso==$3m th-fo= of ac=mplidmid"wiffi elm dz»zwmarvabidas,will ukr.padothy this dm do. t risEstmed at plmtdng do==ts'i=coin p6a=y. Iia ;,which use athw t' m CCC;TA.faadt,wM rive prior ty(for =ate,watfarc m wo&hmds to add Smday sm vim car=t=dcd ha=). L y 'C.. 1MM3=m to C.� mace hrluding but not lk*a m: Service rognmudi by privrz=tdes,which pay the gist for proidng said ur0im Priazfty 49431 be given to My paid oasts ita udiaag ca#tal. Second priority m furily,ptid op=ziml and last q perumay cost,*dTd pft"17'm qty plod opmfiog cost,ad fou th pdatity to pardaBy hoist opwating cost:only if itis dz=mintd by tht Board thm the ovt cca=unity hmeffi.Macs an mvmtm=i.of CCCTA ftds. Thcsc services could it away of this f0owing: i u N with re Icast pmtW buftlizvoRabit. ''ice hVaww====arxvi'-05 fps' R a • tdo �tcl��3. T trr trtw r t)D iWy t p-PneM=si' (mqymmt ' r V4=d=md is bn I. . strma a sit *vmBART,%0%4gbbo4ioods or ky coll=c= Points tag y' dUCL-L dices wb= i BCS+ id, i=d' 'i3ar ate,' • cdm—ci otbzr tD be,dnrpd,jmd 3.OD%:=bimBzcd:if cm'is T. New"Schogl 52allm '�Nbcre,. :dam y art=A.sdt�►i dolao OR • "gym Scbtal DisTd=(clr otbar thatputy)p for add6oxiol &iven- =&sir vtbidcs:u=drd w Fovi&t'ft=vim i