HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05061997 - SD4 }
T
s..�
_ Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
�•'� � Costa
•e
County
FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DATE: APRIL 7, 1997
SUBJECT: TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL (TVTC) DRAFT TRAFFIC
DEVELOPMENT FEE RESOLUTION AND NEXUS STUDY
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPROVE the TVTC Development Fee Resolution changes (Exhibit " C ") and
transmit to the TVTC the enclosed letter for consideration.
AUTHORIZE Auditor-Controller to transfer Measure C 1988 Local Streets Revenues,
not to exceed $3,000, to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Tri-Valley Transportation Council is requesting from each member jurisdiction
$3,000 to finalize any further documentation on an as needed basis to implement a
Traffic-Development Fee in the Tri-Valley Area.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
- RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD C'OMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S): onna Ge r oe Canciamilla
ACTION OF BOARD ON —may 7 APPROV D,AS ECOMMENDED x OTHER—
VOTE
THER_VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ---------= AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT:- ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: Daniel Pulon, CDD (510/335-1241) ATTESTED May 6, 1997
cc: Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Martin Lysons, Public Works MTHBD OF SUPERVISO S
Maurice Shiu, Public Works TY A NIST TOR
County Counsel
DJP/ TVTC (via CDD) B
jAaw\fee4.bo
TVTC DRAFT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT FEE RESOLUTION AND NEXUS STUDY
April 7, 1997
Page 2
BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
For several years, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) has been engaged
in transportation planning efforts for the Tri-Valley Area. These efforts resulted in the
adoption of the Tri-Valley Action Plan/Transportation Plan, establishing Traffic
Service Objectives (TSOs) for Routes of Regional Significance (RORS) and
identifying needed transportation improvement projects that require additional
funding from other sources, such as a development fee.
In November 1994, the Board of Supervisors indicated that it was reluctant to
participate in a study to develop a Regional Traffic Impact Fee program in the TVTC
area without San Joaquin County participating in the program as well. The Board of
Supervisors subsequently clarified its position by stipulating that the County's
participation hinges on TVTC's commitment, via the fee study, to identify
development impacts on the Tri-Valley road network from other jurisdictions,
including San Joaquin County, and determine their fair share contribution for Tri-
Valley road improvements.
In April 1995, the Board of Supervisors, via resolution, approved the County's
participation in the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) Regional Traffic Impact
Fee Study. The primary objective of the Study was to establish fee rates and a nexus
to implement the fees on future development to help fund transportation projects in
the Tri-Valley Area.
On February 26, 1997, the TVTC approved the distribution of Exhibit " A, "
containing a Nexus Study and Draft Transportation Development Fee Resolution, to
the County as well as to the other TVTC jurisdictions for review and comment. The
MC has requested that these comments express any changes, both in language
and polices, reflecting a Traffic Development Fee package the County could
approve. The TVTC has requested that all the TVTC jurisdictions forward their
comments before April 23, 1997. These comments will serve as the basis for
developing a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA). The TVTC, after
incorporating the comments, will redistribute the package, which will include a Draft
JEPA, for each TVTC jurisdiction to approve in implementing the Traffic
Development Fee Program in the Tri-Valley Area.
On April 1, 1997, The Board of Supervisors approved the request from Supervisor
Gerber to refer the TVTC Nexus Study and Draft Transportation Development Fee
Resolution to the Transportation Committee to prepare a response for the Board of
Supervisors' consideration.
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Proposal (TVTDF)
The TVTC Action Plan/Transportation Plan identified eleven (11) under-
funded/unfunded transportation improvements. Some of those projects have funding
earmarked from various sources, while others have none. To fully fund all of the
projects would require an estimated $368 million in fee revenues.
Project Lists. The TVTC decided that full funding of all eleven (11) projects would be
burdensome on future developments. To reduce the fee burden on future residential
and non-residential developments, the TVTC directed its consultants to narrow the
project list to five projects and establish a development fee schedule, supported by
a nexus analysis. From Attachment " A, " the following is the list of the projects that
TVTC DRAFT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT FEE RESOLUTION AND NEXUS STUDY
April 7, 1997
Page 3
the TVTC is proposing to fund. The regional fee contribution is proposed to range
from 8.3% to 100% of the total cost of the selected projects.
TOTAL %OF %OF
PROJECT TOTAL PROPOSED TOTAL
COSTS UNFUNDED PROJECT FEE PROJECT
PROJECT (MILLIONS) COST COST CONTRIBUTION COST
1-580/680 Flyover $121.1 $ 10.1 8.3% $ 10.1 8.3%
State Route 84 97.0 68.9 71% 68.9 71%
J. London to Concannon
1-580 Interchange
Vallecitos to 1-680
1-680 Auxiliary Lanes 40.0 23.6 59% 23.6 59%
(Bollinger to Diablo)
West Dublin/Pleasanton 43.0 43.0 100% 28.6 67%
BART Station
1-680 HOV Lanes 14.4 14.4 100% 14.4 100%
(SR 84 to Sunol Grade)
TOTAL $315.5 $160. $145.6
Proposed Fee Rate. The TVTC has developed a fee rate based on: land use types;
average peak hour trip generation rates; future Tri-Valley development; and cost of
the selected projects. The following proposed fee rate, excerpted from Attachment
" B," would sequentially fund the above selected projects:
LAND USE CATEGORIES TVTDF
Single Family Residential (unit) $2,582
Multi-Family Residential (unit) 1,555
Retail @ sq. ft. (<200sf) 1.15
Retail @ sq. ft. (>200sf) 1.38
Office @ sq. ft. 3.82
Industrial @ sq. ft. 2.78
ISSUE ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED TVTC RESOLUTION:
Fee Calculation in Compliance with AB 1600. The current proposed Fee is based on
a net increase of 50,246 peak hour trip ends in the Tri-Valley area (see Exhibit " A
" Tri-Valley Regional Transportation Improvement Fee Program--Nexus Analysis,
Table 11). This fee cal.cu;latioon is based on the number of net new trip ends
generated in the Tri-Valley,area, rather than the total number of new trip ends. Table
6 of the Nexus Analysis shows that 6,661 new trip ends, representing entitled TVTC
developments, are exempted from the fee. The total number of new trip ends,
therefore, is 56,907.
AB 1600 (now codified as Government Code Sections 66000-66003), applies to any
action that establishes a development fee. It requires that the enacting body
establish a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of
the facility (or portion thereof) to be funded by the fee. This means that when an
exemption to the fee is given to one development or type of development, the burden
created by that exemption cannot be spread among the fee-paying developments.
The fee should therefore be calculated by dividing the total of the project costs by
TVTC DRAFT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT FEE RESOLUTION AND NEXUS STUDY
April 7, 1997
Page 4
the total new trip ends (56,907), rather than the net new trip ends (50,246), to
establish a reasonable relationship between the impact of each trip end its required
fee. However, the current fee calculation proposal divides the total cost of the
projects by the net new trip ends, creating a fee structure that forces fee-paying
developments to make up the fee revenue lost through fee exemptions.
Southern Contra Costa (SCC)Fees for Traffic Mitigation. The County, City of San
Ramon, and Town of Danville have a formal agreement pursuant to Measure C
(1988) requirements, to establish development fees to address regional traffic
impacts from future development. Their impacts are stipulated in the Dougherty
Valley Settlement Agreement. The Agreement legally obligates the County to
mitigate development impacts on identified roads. Any deviations in the Agreement
may hamper each signatory jurisdiction's ability to fulfil its obligation to mitigate
development impacts. The 1-680 Auxiliary Lane project is included in the SCC Fee
as well as in the TVTC Proposed Fee Program. As proposed, the TVTC fee would
become an additional fee burden on a pyramid of transportation fees for the Contra
Costa County MC jurisdictions. Staff has prepared Exhibit " B " that identifies and
compares all the transportation related fees of the TVTC jurisdictions. Staff has
adjusted downward the TVTC fee amount shown in Exhibit B to account for the fee
already being collected by the SCC Fee Program among the three jurisdictions for
the 1-680 Auxiliary Lane project.
Revisions of the Proposed TVTC Resolution. The Draft TVTC Resolution in Exhibit
"A " contained several provisions that are contrary to the unified interests of Contra
Costa County jurisdictions participating in the TVTC. Elected officials from the
County, San Ramon, and Danville have met to discuss and modify those provisions.
Exhibit " C " is a redlined/strike-out version of the Resolution. The following is an
enumerated summary of those major modifications by provisions:
PROVISION MODIFICATION EXPLANATION
1. The modified provision allows for changes in the project list to account for:
• Contra Costa County, as a general law County, has very limited police
powers. Statutory limitations of the Subdivision Map Act restrict the
County's ability to collect fees for transit related projects, such as the
BART Station above, with future development fees. The Subdivision
Map Act allows the use of development fees for defraying the cost of
constructing bridges or constructing major thoroughfares. In order to
comply with the provisions of the Act, the County proposes to retain the
funds collected under the TVTC Fee until a project is constructed. At
that time, the County will contribute its fair share of the TVTC Fee
revenue toward.the project. This will enable the County to maintain that
it is not funding the Dublin BART Station.
The County is not proposing that the fee amount be reduced by the removal of the
BART Station from its project list; the difference in fee revenue will be spread among
the other projects on the list. Funds for each project will be passed to the
appropriate jurisdiction as projects proceed to construction.
TVTC DRAFT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT FEE RESOLUTION AND NEXUS STUDY
April 7, 1997
Page 5
2. The additional language allows for:
• changes in the proposed fee rates based on the project list; and
• the MC to analyze the total burden of all transportation fees on future
development, including the proposed TVTDF, in the Tri-Valley area.
This evaluation should consider the burden of existing fee amounts in
Exhibit " B " and the legal constraints of shifting the fee burden of
exempt development to fee paying developments.
4. The original language would have allowed the TVTC to appoint a member
agency to administer the collected fees, deposited in a common funding
account.
The revised language eliminates the common fund account and establishes
JEPA administrative guidelines, to be administered by each jurisdiction as
they set and collect the TVTC fees. Keeping a separate trust account will
enable the County to ensure that its fee revenues are being expended in
accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.
5. The original text stipulated that the collected fees would sequentially fund the
transportation improvement projects in priority order. In this case, Contra
Costa County jurisdictions, with only one project in the selected list, would
receive TVTC project funding only after the 1-680/580 Flyover and SR 84
projects have been fully funded.
The new language stipulates that the collected fees would first fund:
• 1-680/580 Interchange project;
• reimbursements to member jurisdictions that have advanced funds for
the 1-680/580 Interchange project;
• the preparation of the Combined Study, amounting to $15,000 per
jurisdiction; and
• the costs associated with the implementation of the TVTDF, amounting
to $3,000 per jurisdiction.
6. The new language establishes the criteria to prioritize transportation projects.
These criteria would provide for equal consideration for funding for all the
remaining projects, once the 1-580/1-680 project is complete. This would
encourage jurisdictions to, compete for alternate funding sources and take
local actions to help expedite project development, possibly resulting in faster
project completion.
9. The original language would require TVTC jurisdictions to modify existing
regional fee progfams, such as the SCC fee, by deleting those regional
projects also listed>J a.TVTDF and enact the TVTDF.
The modified language stipulates that the SCC Fee will essentially remain
intact, and that the fee amount collected for the TVTDF will be reduced to
prevent double charging for the 1-680 Auxiliary Lane project, included in both
the SCC Fee and TVTDF project list. The resolution proposed by the TVTC
could potentially direct fee revenues to other large unfunded projects before
fee revenues are allocated to the 1-680 auxiliary lanes. Potential diversion of
revenues from the 1-680 auxiliary lanes could delay its implementation, and
TVTC DRAFT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT FEE RESOLUTION AND NEXUS STUDY
April 7, 1997
Page 6
defer mitigation of the regional traffic impacts of new development in Contra
Costa as required by the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement and other
related environmental documents. By retaining the SCC JEPA fees, a
significant revenue stream for the 1-680 auxiliary lanes will be assured as new
development in Contra Costa occurs, and provide a greater likelihood for early
implementation of this project than if it were subsumed into the larger TVTDF
fee program.
14. The original language stipulated that jurisdictions changing development
agreements with developers are required to include the TVDTF requirements
on the entire development project.
The modified language stipulates that a jurisdiction shall impose the TVTDF
on the net incremental increase in project trips, based on development
agreement changes. Without this revision, desired changes to development
agreements may not occur due to the additional burden of the TVTDF.
TRAFFIC ORIGINATING OUTSIDE THE TVTC AREA. The Board of Supervisors
required that the impact fee study identify traffic impacts on the Tri-Valley road
network, originating outside the TVTC area, including San Joaquin County, to
determine the jurisdiction's fair share contribution for Tri-Valley road improvements
should they choose to participate.
The Traffic Impact Fee consultants have identified those impacts on the Tri-Valley
road network from other jurisdictions outside the TVTC area, as well as identifying
impacts on specific proposed improvements. The analysis yielded the conclusion
that trips originating from San Joaquin County account for approximately 20% of the
traffic impacts on TVTC roads, when compared to the TVTC jurisdictions' traffic
impact by year the 2010. The TVTC should ensure that exempting new trips will not
unfairly burden future fee-paying development in Contra Costa County.
COUNTY COUNSEL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The TVTC has
requested that legal counsel of each TVTC jurisdiction review the Nexus Study and
the proposed TVTDF Resolution, both contained in Exhibit " A," and forward their
recommendations to the TVTC for consideration. On April 7, 1997, the
Transportation Committee requested that County Counsel review the documents in
Exhibit " A " and the revised Resolution in Exhibit " C." The Office of County Counsel
has reviewed the subject documents, and the following summarizes Counsel's
recommendations:
1. The Subdivision Map Act (Government Code section 66484) provides the
County legal authority to collect road fees for " . . . bridges and major
thoroughfares." However, this authority does not include transit projects, such
as the West Dublin BART Station.
County Counsel recommends that TVTC jurisdictions agree to language
ensuring that the proposed fees collected by the County shall only be used for
the identified road improvement projects. This comment is consistent with the
revisions to Exhibit C, #4.
2. Since the County is currently collecting fees for a regional project identified in
the Nexus Analysis, Counsel recommends and agrees with the revised
resolution (Exhibit C, #9) to provide for credit against the TVTDF for fees paid
TVTC DRAFT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT FEE RESOLUTION AND NEXUS STUDY
April 7, 1997
Page 7
for the same projects under other development fee instruments. County
Counsel does not recommend changing the existing SCC Fee Agreement,
signed by Contra Costa County, San Ramon, and Danville.
3. County Counsel recommends using total new trips (not net new trips) in
calculating the proposed development fees since this will proportionally
allocate the fee burden to un-entitled fee paying developments and will not
spread the burden created by the fee exempted, entitled developments.
4. Since the TVTC has an existing Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), Counsel
recommends that as an alternative to creating a separate agreement the
TVTC should consider amending the existing JPA to incorporate
administrative requirements for fee collection.
The revised TVTC Development Fee Resolution (Exhibit " C " ) is supported by
County Counsel's recommendations.
DP\tvtc\fee4.bo
EXHIBIT A
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
Traffic Engineering
P. O. Box 520 - 200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94566
March 12, 1997
Donna Gerber
Supervisor Tri-Valley Jurisdictions
Contra Costa County
(W)820-8683
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Scott Haggerty
Supervisor The attached package is the culmination of many years work by your
Alameda County
(W)272-6691 representatives to Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), your staff
representatives and several consultants. We are asking that you one more
Millie Greenberg,
time confirm your commitment to implementing transportation development
Councilmember fees for regional transportation needs.
Danville
837-3231 The attached information is the TVTC recommended projects, proposed fee
Guy Houston rates and some overall policy used to guide the drafting of a Joint Exercise of
Mayor Powers Agreement (JEPA) to administer the project implementation. The
Dublin TVTC has held two workshops and public meetings to obtain public
(W)828-3337 comment and specific reaction from the building dust Their comments
(H)828-2152 P g �InrY•
have been useful in reshaping the proposal and while the proposal will not
Sharrell Michelotti be all things to every interest, we believe it moves us reasonably closer to
Councilmember
Pleasanton our charge of developing a Tri-Valley Transportation system which can better
(W)462-2419 serve both existing and future development in the Tri-Valley in an equitable
Tom Reitter, fashion.
Councilmember
Livermore Process Suggested
(W)422-1468
(H)443-3326
MC believes that the most expeditious process will require each
Hermann Welm, jurisdiction to review the current proposal and let us know of any fatal flaws
Vice Mayor which you believe must be corrected for the fee proposal to be acceptable to
San Ramon,CA
(W)262-4846 your jurisdiction. In addition to these comments we also ask that you
(H)838-8261 appoint a legal counsel to assist in developing a common language for the
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee ordinance and JEPA agreement to
be adopted by all jurisdictions once any needed revisions are determined by
consensus. The attached East Contra Costa County Regional Fee and
Financing Authority JEPA is a starting point. The third action would be to
appropriate an additional $3000 which will be used, if needed, to finalize
any further documentation which TVTC and your legal staff believes must be
done to implement the fees.
1 1
March 11, 1997 -2-
Given the current accelerated rate of development, we believe that time is of the essence
as not only is our transportation system showing the signs of overcapacity, but the
opportunity to have new development help pay.for their impacts is fast diminishing as we
approach buildout in many of our jurisdictions. We suggest that if at all possible you return
your comments to us for our April 23, 1997 meeting so that we may resolve any issues
presented and be able to return to each jurisdiction a revised fee proposal for adoption in
May. We know that this is an ambitious schedule, however, we also know how things can
slip if not diligently pursued.
Critical Issues:
Projects to be Funded:
1. 1-580/1-680 interchange
2. State Route 84
Jack London to Concannon
1-580 Interchange
Vallecitos to 1-680
3. West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station
4. 1-680 HOV Lanes - Route 84 (Highway 84 to Top of Sunol Grade)
5. 1-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Bollinger to Diablo)
Fee rate
A fee rate has been proposed to accomplish the top five projects. (Table 1) It is trip based
for land use types. We believe it is the best starting point given the regional nature of our
funded facilities. The NTC has examined the use of AM, PM and average traffic
generation rates and recommends the use of the "average".
Initial Project Priorities and Cash Flow
While the fee is set to fund all five projects, cash flow and the lack of bonding ability will
mandate that the projects be phased over the life of the fee. Land use projections are done
to year 2010. The TVTC recommends that the first call for funds be to the 1-580/1-680.
Flyover, with a second priority jointly to the Isabel Highway 84 Measure "B" local project
and completion of the environmental and preliminary design work for the remaining
projects. TVTC recommends that no more than 25% of any one year's revenue should go
toward environmental or design activities, which then places the emphasis on
construction. Periodic review of fee structure and priority will determine the priority of the
remaining projects at a later date when additional information and EIR documents are
completed.
v
March 11, 1997 -3-
Agreement To Seek Additional Funds And Carry Over Any Extra Money To Other Priority
Tri-Valley Projects.
There are limited avenues to obtain any additional funds for our needed projects. These
include sales tax measures and enactment of some new regional or state gas tax.
Projections of the likely amount of any such funds available to Tri-Valley indicates that an
ongoing Development fee will be required. Our Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan
as mutually adopted, should serve as the Tri-Valley's official position on need and
allocation of discretionary funds for regional improvements. It is anticipated that even with
the development fees that need will outpace our ability to deliver improvements in some
areas.
Fee Exemptions
The handling of projects with existing exemptions is clear cut, however, the modifications
of development agreements without requirement to conform to the TVTC Fee Rate is at
issue. Another specific exemption, for public facilities, must also be resolved.
Agreement to include costs of future Plan updates and fee administration in the fee rate
Fee schedules and cost estimates will change over time as will projections of Tri-Valley
development an expenditure of 1 % for administration and traffic model updates is
recommended, The cost of any administration and Traffic Model update up to 1 % of
revenues should be included within the fee schedule.
Draft Resolution
The draft resolution is provided for review as it contains many of the issues discussed by
the TVTC. Other background material is also furnished.
We would appreciate comments be as specific as possible as we hope to resolve any fatal
flaws quickly and return these documents in their final form after our April 23, 1997
meeting.
Sincerely,
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
aq. S. 2Uelri►**�
Hermann Welm
Chair
Attachments: Resolution
Nexus Study
3
s s
March 1997
DRAFT TVTC RESOLUTION
TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT FEE POLICY
WHEREAS; Each Tri-Valley Jurisdiction has adopted the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan
Action Plan (TVTPAP) and agreed to pursue the joint adoption of Transportation
Development Fees and.
WHEREAS; the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) has been constituted to plan and
assist in the funding of such a plan and,
WHEREAS; Certain mutually agreed to policies must be adhered to by each of the Tri-Valley
jurisdictions if an equitable Fee Program is to be enacted by each jurisdiction.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT; The following policies are proposed as part of
the "Draft Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Proposal":
1) Each jurisdiction shall adopt their own version of the "Tri-Valley Transportation
Development Fee", (TVTDF), in substantially the same language as each of the other
jurisdictions, including the 5 priority projects shown on Attachment A.
2) That the initial fee rates shall be as in Attachment B.
3) The changes in any jurisdiction's "Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee" shall not
be done unilaterally and will entail comprehensive review by each of the Tri-Valley
Jurisdictions in terms of equity and impact of the changes on the completion of those
stated projects contemplated to be funded by the TVTDF.
4) That a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) will be formed to cover the
establishment and administration by a member agency of the fees. The fees shall be
deposited into a common fund to be administered according to financial guidelines as
unanimously adopted by all of the Tri-Valley jurisdictions.
5) That the first call on the fee funds will be to reimburse any moneys advanced by member
jurisdictions to complete the highest priority project on the approved Project list, and then
to the next highest priority project.
6) Reimbursement of funds advanced by member jurisdictions shall include interest fixed at
five percent.
7) That the TVTDF rates shall be based on the average of AM and PM peak hour trips and
land use categories and be uniform across all jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley.
8) That member jurisdictions currently collecting development fees for projects listed in
TVTDF will revise their local fees to delete those projects and enact the TVTDF.
9) That the fees will be adjusted at least every.five years, or as needed, to take into account
the most recent project cost estimates, rates of development, project priorities and
external funding commitments. Each update shall also include a financial plan, include
cash flow and project estimates.
10) That fee rates will automatically adjust annually as indicated by the construction cost
index published in Engineering News Record.
11) That additional projects may be added by unanimous vote of all TVTC jurisdictions, to
the TVTDF "Funded Projects List" from the most recent adopted TVTPAP provided that
the fee rate and cash flow can accommodate the added project(s) as well as the currently
funded projects.
12) Tri-Valley jurisdictions agree to mutually seek external funding for all priority projects
and, if successful, support the carryover of any excess funds for implementation of the
priority project(s) next in line.
13) That each jurisdiction shall levy the TVTDF on all development not legally precluded
from the fee, and that any development agreements which replace or supersede
agreements shall include the TVTDF requirement:
14) That TVTC may adopt exemption rules, by unanimous agreement. (i.e. low income
housing, or other public needs).
15) That each jurisdiction appropriate $3,000 additional funds for the implementation of
TVTDF to be reimbursed by future TVTDF fiends.
tvtc\feres3 9 7.sam.sm
updated 3/11/97
U)
le U)
Z t1Q N N co V- eq m
W M
qw
ol 0
0
IL
W
W
LU U.
L6
z m 0 CD 0 'gr C)
LU
C:) CY) Cl U') CY) Nr CY) CD
T-- 6A. qT C14 q T- 04 (D
z
o LL
A
0
LU
> 0
JU X
Cl)
Z z
LLJ -0
.0 m 0
Z s-
0 B
0
< < c
F- 0
0 0 CL W
c 0 0)
C
Q
m0<
4—
49
0 CD Z 14,
(-) —, co C/)
0 0
C) LU
LU
0
A UJ ULJ a
.J --)
> 00 (1) uj
0 -j co wzw
> w 0 Nr -@ -j
w -.; 9— > a, < <
U- z
00
(0 w = = d -j CL
W 00
OD &.- coo 00
Ul) m to to 4
ATTACHMENT "B"
PROPOSED TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE
FEE SCHEDULE
BASED ON A.M./P.M.
LAND USE CATEGORY AVERAGE
Single Family $2582 per dwelling unit
Multi-Family $1555 per dwelling unit
Retail (<200ksf) $1.15 per square foot
Retail (>200ksft) $1.38 per square foot
Office $3.82 per square foot
Industrial $2.78 per square foot
07
Tri-Valley Regional Transportation
Improvement Fee Program
Nexus Analysis
■ Introduction
In July 1995, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TNTC) adopted the Tri-Valley Action
Plan as its blueprint for transportation planning through the year 2010. The Plan
acknowledges that financial constraints played a critical role in selecting an optimal level
of service and identifying only the most critical improvement to regional roadways and
transit facilities. As an integral component of the Plan's financial strategy, TVTC will
leverage over$162 million in federal,state,and local (i.e., Measure C and Measure B sales
tax funding) provided it can raise matching funds from other local sources.
The TVTC selected 11 improvements that will require over $534 million, leaving $368
million of the plan currently unfunded. In order to fund this gap, the TVTC has
undertaken a study of a Regional Transportation Improvement Fee (RTIF). The RTIF
would charge a fee on new development to augment other funding for projects on routes
of regional significance. The purpose of this report is to document the technical analysis
necessary for the implementation of the RTIF traffic V
■ Methodology
An area-wide fee program must conform to the requirements of Government Code 66000
et seq. and subsequent opinions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, California Supreme
Court, and lower courts. While the statutes and court decisions provide general
guidelines, the design and implementation of multi-jurisdictional impact fees is not as
tightly circunnscribed as other local revenue measures (e.g., assessment districts, local
sales tax measures, subdivision map/developer exactions). Nevertheless, the statutory
requirements and judicial guidance behooves the TNTC to follow a basic five step process
to design its regional fee:
I. Convert New Development Into A Net Increment of New Trips. ABAG's Projections
94 provides the forecast of new residents and employees moving into the Tri-Valley
area over the next 20 years.This projection of residential and employment growth in
each jurisdiction must be converted to a 13 year increment of new trip generation
(1997 to 2010). This increment must then be reduced by the number of trips
associated with exempt development Exempt development has already received a
vesting tentative map or has a development agreement excluding assessment of
additional fees.
CaiabP idgr Systawho,Inc 1
2. Specify the Transportation Improvements Needed to Growth. The law allows the
TVTC to require new development to mitigate its full impact on the Tri-Valley routes
of regional significance [ie., maintain current levels of service (LOS)]. The TVTC,
however,has limited the maximum cost to new development to the unfunded portion
of the Action Plan's eleven projects,approximately$368 million This is substantially
below the threshold of new development's full responsibility.
3. Evaluate the Relationship Between the Improvements, the Share of Funding from
New Development, and the Impact of New Trip Generation. The improvements
must provide benefits that are in reasonable proportion to the amount of the impacts
fees paid by new development Thus,if TVTC imposes a uniform fee,it must reach a
consensus that new development in all parts of the Tri-Valley area will receive
roughly proportional benefits from the improvements.
4. Allocate Costs Across Land Use Types. Fee amounts should be fairly distributed
among residential, retail, office, and industrial) development This distribution is
based on the trip generation characteristics of each land use type. Nevertheless, the
TVTC may reduce the fees for some types of land use if the foregone revenue is
replaced with some other funding source (e.g.,federal and state) and the RTIF-funded
projects are eventually built
5. Prepare Fee Sc?edules and Implementation Ordinances. Each local jurisdiction,
through their exercise of their police power„ must adopt an ordinance imposing the
fee on development within their jurisdiction. The TVTC may adjust a uniform fee
schedule for specific land use conditions or circumstances, including the effects of
household income on trip generation,the land use's proximity to transit stations, and
the effects of jobs-housing balance on travel behavior.
The remainder of this report explains the calculations and presents the results of each of
the five steps described above. Supporting documentation regarding transportation
analysis and computer modeling is available from TVTC
■ New Development and Incremental Trip Generation
From 1997 through 2010, new development in the Tri-Valley area will generate 56,907
additional a.m. peak hour trips on the area's routes of regional significance, a 40 percent
increase over the next 14 years. The following sections explain the origins of this increase.
Population, Employment,and Land Use Growth
The fee is based on the projected growth in Tri-Valley households and employment
forecast by ABAG (Projections 94). The figures for 1997 are estimated by straight line
interpolation between the years.1990 and 2000. Households,which are occupied dwelling
units,are used as a proxy for dwelling units and adjusted for an area-wide vacancy rate.
Table 1 presents the population and employment projections.
Cambridge Systematics,Inc 2
9
Table 1. ABAG Forecast of Tri-Valley Households
Jurisdiction 1997 2010 Increment Shares Growth
Alamo/Blackhawk 7,148 7,906 758 1.7% 10.6%
Danville 12,943 14,790 1,847 4.0% 143%
Dougherty 2,224 10,356 8,132 17.8% 365.6%
Tassajara 168 280 112 02% 67.1%
San Ramon 151077 18,411 3034 73% 22.1%
Other Contra Costa Co. 697 845 148 03% 213%
Total Contra Costa Co. 38.256 52,588 14,332 313% 37.5%
Livermore 24.291 34,997 10,706 23.4% 44.1%
Pleasanton 21.277 30,151 8,874 19.4% 41.7%
Dublin 9,372 20,880 11,508 252% 122.8%
Other Alameda Co. 240 549 309 0.7% 129.1%
Total Alameda Co. 55.180 86577 31397 68.7% 56.9%
Total Tri-Valley 93,436 139,165 45,729 100.0% 48.9%
As shown in Table 1,residential development in Alameda County will accommodate over
two-thirds of the area's residential development. Dougherty Valley, the area's fastest
growing community, will account for almost 18 percent of the area's new residents.
Dublin and the unincorporated area of Alameda County are the new two most rapidly
developing jurisdictions and will account for 26 percent of the growth.
Table 2 shows that the three jurisdictions in Alameda County will accommodate more
than three-quarters of the Tri-Valley's employment growth. Total employment for the
region is expected to increase by over 57 percent, with total jobs in the Contra Costa
County increasing by more than 42 percent and in Alameda County by 64 percent
Table 2. ABAG Forecast of Tri-Valley Employment Growth from 1997 to 2020
Jurisdiction 1997 2010 Increment Shares Growth
Alamo/Blackhawk 2,072 2,272 200 03% 9.7%
Danville 6,960 7,226 266 03% 3.8%
Dougherty 765 5,365 4,600 6.0% 6013%
Tassajara 31 32 1 0.0% 32%
San Ramon 32,397 45,204 1Z.807 16.7% 39.5%
Other Contra Costa Co. 91 92 1 0.0% 1.1%
Total Contra Costa Co. 42,315 60,191 17,876 23.4% 42.2%
Livermore 33,811 51,815 18A04 23.5% 532%
Pleasanton 40,137 6IA76 21.339 27.9% 532%
Dublin 16,836 36,00 19,164 25.0% 113.8%
Other Alameda Co. 791 943 152 02% 19.2%
Total Alameda Co. 91,576 150,234 58.658 76.6% 64.1%
Total Tri-Valley 133,891 noA25 76,534 100.0% 572%
Cambridge Systematics,Inc. 3
to
Population and employment growth will generate and attract new trips on the area's
regional roadways. The socio-economic projections shown in Tables 1 and 2 are used in a
transportation demand forecasting model developed specifically for the Tri-Valley area to
forecast the increase in travel. The results of the modeling are shown in Table 3.
Trip Generation
Table 3 presents the a.m. peak hour traffic volumes for the years 1997, 2010, and the
growth within the 14 year increment. The projections assume all 11 Action Plan projects
are built.
Table 3. Growth in AM Peak Hour Trip Ends From 1997 to 2010
1997 2010 Increment Shue Growth
Alamo/Blackhawk 6,857 7,609 753 1.3% 11.0%
Danville 15,518 16,471 953 1.7% 6.1%
Dougherty 3572 11,683 81111 143% 227.1%
Tassajara 160 233 73 0.1% 45.4%
San Ramon 23,336 25.179 1,843 32% 7.9%
Other Contra Costa County 519 695 176 03% 34.0%
Total Contra Costa Countv 49,%2 61,870 11,908 20.9% 23.8%
Livermore 37,874 52.917 15.043 26.4% 39.7%
Pleasanton 36,369 49,684 13,315 23.4% 36.6%
Dublin 18,822 35.145 16= 28.7% 86.7%
Other Alameda County 575 893 318 0.6% 553%
Total Alameda County 93,640 138.639 44,999 79.1% 48.1%
Total Tri-Valley 143,602 200,509 56,907 100.0% 39.6%
The total increment of 56,907 new trips encompass all trips that either originate or
terminate in the Tri-Valley area. In addition, the area will accommodate roughly 5,530
new through trip ends(external-external),or roughly 10 percent of the total increase.
Exempt Development
The total increment of new trip generation (from 1997 to 2010) includes trips from new
development that will be exempt from paying a fee. Their exemption is due to either one
of two legal criteria applying to a development project that has (1) been issued a vested
tentative map or (2) completed a development agreement that explicitly excludes assess-
ment of any additional fees.' If either of these criteria apply to a development project as
of the official date that the jurisdiction's council or board adopts the RTIF, the developer
may pull the proscribed number of building permits without paying a fee.
' If for any reason the vesting tentative map or development agreement of an exempt development
expires or must be re-negotiated,the jurisdiction may impose the fee.
C4mbndge Syskmnt=,Iris 4
While the transportation impacts of exempt development will be as real as the impacts
from non-exempt development, the TVTC cannot impose a fee and therefor cannot collect
fee revenues for the proposed projects. Thus, we must subtract the number of new trips
generated by exempt development from the total increment of new trips. The result is the
net amount of new trips over which we can allocated the unfunded cost of the selected
improvements.
Table 4 shows the exempt development in the Tri-Valley area.
Table 4. Exempt Development By jurisdiction
Residential Retail Square Office Square Industrial
Jurisdiction Dwelling units Feet Feet Square Feet
Alamo/Blackhawk - - - -
Danville - -
Dougherty - - -
TVPOA - - - -
San Ramon 650 - 2,123,600
Other Tri-Valley CC County - - - -
Total Contra Costa Co. 650 2.123.600
Livermore 1,414 - - 4,961,000
Pleasanton 2,790 - - -
Dublin 172 - - -
Other Tri-Valley Alameda County - -
Total Alameda Co. 4,376 - - 4,961,000
Total Tri-Valley 5,026 ' +�- 2.123,600 4,961,000
The exempt development shown in Table 4 is subtracted from the total 1997 to 2010
increment of new development in Tri-Valley. The projection of new development for Tri-
Valley is a rough estimate based on the ABAG socio-economic forecasts. Average
vacancy rates are used to convert households to dwelling units. Average density factors
are used to covert employees to square feet of retail, office and industrial space. The
results are shown in Table 5.
C *edge Systematics,1= 5
�z
Table 5. Estimates of New Development for Tri-Valley(1997-2010)
1997-2010
Land Use Categories Increment
Single Family Dwelling Units 34,597
Multi Family Dwelling Units 6,105
Small Retail Square Feet(<200,000 sq.ft) 8,848,040
Large Retail Square Feet(>200,000 sq.ft.) 2,949,347
Office Square Feet 91152,200
Industrial Square Feet 5,396500
For each category of land use exempt development was converted into trips and the
amount deducted from the total number of trips for that land use. For example, a vested
project with twenty dwelling units of single family residential would generate 0.74 a.m.
peak hour trips per unit or a total of 14.8 a.m. peak hour trips. The results of this
adjustment process are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Total,Exempt,and Net AM Peak Hour Trip Ends From 1997 to 2010
Total Trip Ends Exempt Trip Ends Net Trip Ends
Alamo/Blackhawk 753 0 753
Danville 953 0 953
Dougherty 8,111 0 81111
Tassajara 73 0 73
San Ramon 1,843 689 1,154
Other Contra Costa Co. 176 0 176
Livermore&North Livermore 15,043 3,757 11286
Pleasanton 13,315 4093 11,222
Dublin&East Dublin 16,323 122 16,201
Other Alameda Co. 318 0 318
Total 56,907 6,661 50,246
The appropriate trip generation rates are applied to the exempt development in order to
estimate the number of new trips that must be deducted from the total increment.= The
total number of trips from exempt residential development equals roughly 3,500 a.m.
peak trips, or about 56 percent of the total 6,661 exempt trips. Non-residential develop-
ment will generate the remaining 44 percent. These estimates are deducted from the total
2 The trip generation rates are determined from the Trip Gencrrators, 5th Edition, Institute of Traffic
Engineers (ITE) and modified according to special Tri-Valley conditions as determined from the
updated traffic model. These rates are shown in Table 11.
Conbridgr Sysbcnatim Inc. 6
13
increment of 56,907 new trips, producing roughly 50,246 net trips that may be assigned a
share of the cost of improvements.
■ Transportation Improvements
In July of 1995, TVTC adopted the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of
Regional Significance (Action Plan). The Action Plan identifies 11 projects that will achieve
the best level of service within the Tri-Valley given financial constraints, physical limita-
tions within corridors, and development patterns. The Plan integrates enhancements to
roadway capacity,increased transit service,control of demand (growth management and
TDM), and acceptance of congestion in locations where it cannot be avoided (see 71e
Action Plan,pages 117 to 123).
Table 7 identifies the 11 major projects on routes of regional significance within the Tri-
Valley. The TVTC selected this set of actions- as well as other programs and measures
described in the Plan- to mitigate congestion and achieve a specific set of Traffic Service
Objectives. These results assume that future traffic will be constrained by the limited
capacities of highway facilities serving the Tri-Valley Gateways (see 77w Action Plan,
Chapter 5,"Gateway Constraints").
Table 7. Action Plan Projects and Available Funding
Funding Unfunded
Project Total Cost Available Amount
1-580/1-680 Interchange $121.2 $111.1 $10.1
Route 84(includes interchanges at I-580 and Stanley) $213.0 $36.1 $176.9
1-680 Auxiliary Lanes(Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon) $40.0 $16.4 $23.6
BART Extension:West Dublin station $43.0 $0.0 $43.0
I-580 Tassajara to N.Livermore:HOV Lanes $40.0 $0.0 $40.0
I-680 Rbe 84 to Sunoh HOV Lanes $14.4 $0.0 $14.4
I-580/Foothill Interchange modifications for W.Dublin BART $20 $0.0 $2.0
I-680/Alcosta Interchange modifications $9.6 $23 $73
Crow Canyon Rd Safety Improvement $18.0 $02 $17.8
Vasco Road Realignment $25.0 $0.0 $25.0
Express Bus Service $8.0 $0.0 $8.0
Total Action Plan $5342 $166.1 $368.1
The unfunded cost of all 11 Action Plan projects equals roughly $368 million in 1997 dol-
lara,or about 70 percent of the total cost.
After considerable technical analysis and careful consideration, the TVTC has determined
that a fee program designed to fund the full $368 million shortfall would place an
excessive financial burden on new development. This burden would be most severe on
low-income housing and commercial development. For example, heavy fees on
Cambridge Systematia,Inc. 7
commercial development would have the probable- and counterproductive-
consequence of driving some job-creating development outside the Tri-Valley, thus
exacerbating the region's jobs/housing imbalance.
Given these objectives, the TVTC ranked the 11 projects according to their affect of con-
gestion and the amount of state and federal funding that could be leveraged using fee
revenues as a local match. In order to facilitate this ranking,Route 84 was divided into six
separate projects. Each was then evaluated on its own merits and compared to the other
10 Action Plan projects. Table 8 presents the six highest-ranked projects.
Table 8. Selected Action Plan Projects and Available Funding
Funding Unfunded
Project Total Cost Available Amount
1-580/1-680 Interchange $1212 $111.1 $10.1
Rte 84:I-580/Isabel Ext new I/C,Isabel at 4 lanes $40.0 $0.0 $40.0
Rte 84/Isabel Ext:J.London to Concannon&I-580/Airway $32.0 $28.1 $3.9
Rte 84:1-580 to Vineyard:widen to 4 lanes • $25.0 $0.0 $25.0
1-680 Auxiliary Lanes(Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon) $40.0 $16.4 $23.6
BART Extension: WeNDublin station $43.0 $0.0 $43.0
Total For All Six Projects $3092 $163.6 $144.6
As shown in Table 8, this short list of the highest ranked projects totals $309 million in
cost of which roughly $145.6 million- or about half- is unfunded. Thus, this short list
represents a 65 percent reduction in the unfunded cost TVTC intends to cover with the
impact fee.
Existing Local Impact Fees forActionPlan
Some Tri-Valley jurisdictions require new development to mitigate their impacts on the
same sections of regional routes that will be improved by one of the Action Plan projects.
Developers either pay local impact fees,dedicate right-of-way, or construct transportation
facilities. Some jurisdiction's include funding for one or more of the six projects in their
local fee programs. In these cases, the NTC will work with local jurisdictions to reduce
the local fee by the amount of the regional component and new development will pay the
full regional fee. Thus, the total amount being funded by the RTIF fee must be increased
by the amount of funding from local fees.
Table 9 presents an initial inventory of each jurisdiction's locally funded (or required)
improvements to the six highest-ranked projects.
Cambridge Syswnat=Inc. taw,, 8
�b
Table 9. Local Funding for Selected Projects
jurisdiction Millions of 1997
Dollars
Alamo/Blackhawk
Danville (este) $0.7
Dougherty (estate) $62
Tassalara -
San Ramon (estimabe) $1.4
Other TV Contra Costa County (estimate) $0.1
Total Contra Costa Co. s 8.5
Livermore $75
Pleasanton -
Dublin -
Other TV Alameda County -
Total Alameda Co. $75
Total Tri-Valley $16.0
The amounts shown in Table 9 for the four jurisdictions in Contra Costa County are
estimates of the Southern Contra Costa Fee for Traffic Mitigation. The estimates assume
roughly proportional to the trip generation estimated from each jurisdiction. As noted
above, the $16 million total in local fee revenue must be added to the $145.6 million in
unfunded cost. The total amount to be funded with
e RTIF, therefore, equals $161.6
million.
■ Nexus Analysis
The impact of new Tri-Valley development on regional transportation facilities is based
on an update of the Tri-Valley Model completed by Dowling Associates (Tri-Valley Re-
Validation Report, June 1997). This computer model simulates current and future traffic
flows on the roadway network under a wide range of user-specified conditions. The
model is extremely useful for determining the impact of new development on roadway
levels-of-service. In particular, the model estimates new development's fair share of the
Action Plan improvements by isolating the effects of new development from those of
existing development.through(external-external) trips,and existing deficiencies.
This analysis indicated that this development will cause levels-of-service to decline
despite all of the improvements proposed in MTC's short and long range improvement
plan. Nor will the improvements to be funded as part of the Action Plan prevent
degradation's in levels-of-service.
As part of its Action Plan, the TVTC has evaluated the impact of new development on its
subregional system and identified numerous improvements. These improvements- if all
were completed by the year 2010- will increase the area's capacity for vehicle miles of
Cambridge Systnnat=,Inc 9
I�
travel (VMT) by almost 21 percent. New development will increase the number of VMT
using this capacity by 48 percent, thus absorbing almost 99 percent of the new capacity.
VMT from through trips (i.e., trips travel through the area but not stopping) will increase
16 percent. Of the total 254,281 increase in VMT, new development will account for 90
percent of the increase. Table 10 presents the results of the VMT analysis in more detail.
Table 10. VMT Analysis from 1997 to 2010
1997 2010 Increment Change
VMT for All Tri-Valley 632.756 887,037 254,281 40.2%
VMT for Through Trips 151,987 176,167 24,180 15.9%
VMT for Internal Tri-Valley 480,769 710XM 230,101 47.9%
VMT Capacity 1,117,059 1,350559 233,500 20,9%
The results shown in Table 10 would justify the TVTC allocating 90 percent of the Action
Plan's total cost- roughly $535 million- to new development in the Tri-Valley area. For-
tunately, TVTC has secured $166 million (or 30 percent of the total) from other sources,
leaving $368 million still unfunded. While the TVTC could require new development to
fund the entire unfunded balance, it has selected six projects it believes are most needed.
These projects, however, will not prevent some degradation in the regional network's
level of service.
■ Fee Calculations
Fee calculations involve four steps:
• Step 1 - Allocation of Costs: Determine if the total share of unfunded costs should be
allocated uniformly to all new development in the Tri-Valley area, regardless of juris-
diction,or if a the fees must be determined on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis.
• Step 2- Cost per Peak hour a Trip End. Calculate three per trip amounts and three
fee schedules based generating sufficient revenues to fund the $368 million unfunded
balance for all 11 Action Plan Projects and the$161.6 million for the selected projects.
• Step 3- Preliminary Fee Schedules: Apply the three costs per peak hour trip end to
the trip generation characteristics of different types of land use to create three pre-
Ha dreary fee schedules.
• Step 4-Final Fee Schedule:As an alternative to the three fee schedules in Step 3,cre-
ate a discounted fee schedule which reduces the financial burden placed on new
development by collecting less than the full,unfunded amount.
Guabiidge Systaaa=,Inc 10
l?
Allocation of Costs
The fee revenue generated by each jurisdiction should be rough proportion to the benefits
each jurisdiction receives from the Action Plan improvements. This balance, however, is
difficult to quantify given the complexity of travel patterns in the Tri-Valley. As an alter-
native to a quantitative analysis, the TVTC's Technical Advisory Committee has recom-
mended six projects it believes represent a reasonable balance of benefits to all
jurisdictions. Given the extensive experience of the TAC's membership, this qualitative
approach is a satisfactory alternative to a qualitative analysis using the transportation
model (i.e., select-link analysis of all proposed projects'). Thus, TVTC has decided to
apply a uniform cost per peak hour trip end across all TVTC jurisdictions.
Costs Per Peak Hour Trip End
A uniform cost per peak hour trip end is calculated by dividing the net increase of 50,246
new a.m. peak hour trip ends by the three revenue targets: $368 million for all 11 Action
Plan Projects and $161.6 million for six selected projects.. Table 11 presents the two costs
per peak hour trip end.
Table 11. Alternative Funding Amounts and Corresponding Costs Per Peak
Hour Trip End.
Revenue Targets Per Peak Hour Share of
(S2,000,0001s) Trip End Action Plan
Full Action Plan(11 Projects) $368.1 $7,362
Selected Proiects $161.6 $3.216 4496
Preliminary Fee Schedules
The fee amounts are determined by multiplying the cost per a.m. peak hour trip end by
the number of trips generated by a particular land use. For purposes of efficiency and
consistency, TVTC has limited its fee schedule to two types of residential development
(i.e., single and multi-family dwelling units) and four types of commercial space (large
and small retail, office, and industrial). Table 12 shows the Institute of Traffic Engineers
trip generation rates for each of these land use. In addition, it shows the adjustments for
average trip length,trip diversion,and the final adjusted trip length.
For each segment of regional roadway that will be improved using fee revenues,select link analysis
shows the origins and destinations of future trips. Thus,the results help allocate the benefit of the
improved roadway according to the amount of new development in each jurisdiction.
Cambridge Sys&maftm Inc. 11
Table 12. A.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates and Adjustments
Trip Diversion Trip Length Adjusted A.M
Land Use Catecories Base Rates Adjustment Factor Adiustment Factor Peak Hour Trip Rate
Single Family Residential 0.74 1.00 1.00 094
Multi Family Residential 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.47
Retail per sq.ft.(<200 ksf) 1.60 0.20 050 0.16
Retail per sq.ft.(>200 ksf) 0.80 0.45 050 0.18
Office per sq.ft. 1.33 1.00 1.00 133
Industrial per sq.ft. 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90
Trip diversion factors indicate the percentage of trips for each land use category that are
part of a longer trip but divert less than two miles out of the way to stop at the land use.
Trip length adjusts for trip shorter than the home-based work trips. The rates shown in
Table 13 are multiplied by the cost per peak hour trip end produce the two preliminary
fee schedules shown below. The bottom row shows the estimated amounted of revenue
each fee schedule should collect over the next 13 years.
Table 13. Preliminary Fee Schedules (1997—2010)
Full Action Plan Selected
Land Use Categories (11-Projects) Projects
Single Fancily Residential $5,421 $2,380
Multi Family Residential $3,443 $1,512
Retail per square foot(<200 ksf) $1.17 $051
Retail per square foot(>220 ksf) $132 $058
Office per square foot $9.74 $4.28
Industrial per square foot. $6.59 $2.89
Total Revenues($1,000,000) $368.1 $161.6
■ Economic Burden Analysis
While TVTC may be legally entitled to levy any of the preliminary fees shown in Table 13,
there are several compelling reasons for levying a lower fee on commercial development.
Tri-Valley currently has a surplus of workers and a shortage of jobs (a jobs/housing
imbalance) and intends to encourage more commercial growth to improve the balance.
Measure C states that jobs/housing balance should be considered in the establishment of
the regional fee. In addition, Tri-Valley jurisdictions are struggling to attract jobs, retail
services,and sales tax revenue.
In order to reduce the financial burden placed on commercial development, the TVTC
may adopt an alternative fee schedule which has lower fees than those shown in Table 13.
Cambridge Systematics,Inc�V*0
12
as 7
The appropriate alternative fee schedule should be determined through a political process
that relies on the participation of stakeholders. Any reliance on a quantitative analysis of
economic burden would encounter the following short comings.
• Who Actually Pays the Fee?- Opponents of impacts fees point out that fees directly
increase housing prices and costs of business. Proponents argue that these impacts on
the end user are short-term effects and that in the mid to long-term fees are absorbed in
the developer's profit and;or passed back to land owners. In reality, sorting out who
actually pays impact fees is extremely complex and highly dependent on local market
conditions.
• How Much Is the Total Fee Burden?- Some jurisdictions use the Subdivision Map
Act, CEQA, and/or development agreements to fund some or all transportation
improvements. As a consequence, their impact fee programs (under Government
Code 66000 et seq), appear modest compared to jurisdictions using a different mix of
local funding methods.
• Are Impact Fee Burdens Measured in Relative or Absolute Terms?- Even if accurate
total amounts could be determined for each jurisdiction, the true burden is relative to
the strength of the local real estate market and not simply a comparison of absolute fee
amounts. Thus, each jurisdiction's real estate market, redevelopment program, fiscal
condition, municipal service levels,and supply of land are critical variables that should
be considered in weighting the dollar amount of the fee.
• To What Degree Are Fees Providing Benefits to Property Owners?- TVTC fees will
go directly to maintaining traffic conditions on major routes. In many locations,
specific development projects will receive benefits, thus maintaining (or
improving) property values. The fee's burden evedh within the same jurisdiction may
vary significantly depending on the transportation conditions faced by individual
property owners.
Given these shortcomings, TVTC must work with its various stakeholders to determine
how much it can afford to charge developers and how much it can accept in future
congestion.
Cambridge Systematrrs.Inc. 13
rvu.lei D02
t
The Use of Alternative Peak Hour Rates for Allocating
Responsibility for MC Regional Impact Fee
i
At their 1/29/97 meeting die Tri-valley C mcil asked that they be p esented with three options for
allocating the TVTC Regional Traffic Impact Fee to land use types. This memo presents fee calculations
for AM Peak Hour.PM Peat Hour,sad the average of the two.
AM Peak HOW
The Nexus Analysis Report(dated 1/9M7)allocated the atunated 5161.6 mt7liao finding ahortfOl for the
top 4 projects in dw Action Plan acmes 50,246 tut AM peak hour trips. The result was a TVTC regional
fee of 53,216'per peak hour vehicle trip.
i
The following table of trip rates,derived from the TTB Trip Generation Guide,Fifth Edition,was then used
t o compute the TVTC fee per dwelling unit and per 1000 square feet.
Table 12. AM Peak How Trip Generation Rates and Adjuattnrents
Land Use ITE Rate(AM) Trip Diversion Trip Length Adjusted AM Peak
_Category Adjustment Factor Adjustment Factor Hour'hip Rate
Single Family 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.74
i Residential
Multi-Fainly 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.47
y Residential
' Retail(�Z00 kst) 1.60 0.20 050 0.16
(per 1000 SF)
Retail(>200 ksf) 0.80 0.45 0.50 0.18
(per 1000 SF)
Office 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.33
(per 1000 SF)
Industrial 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90
(per 1000 SF)
The resulting fee schedule for firoding the unfunded portions of the Top 4 projects is shown in Table 13 of
the Nexus Report(reprinted below).
Table 13. Preliminary Fee Schedules(1997-2010)(AM Peak Rates)
Land Use Csnq!es Full Action Plan(11 Projects) Selected Projects
Single FxvWy RsaidmtLl 55,421 32,380
l Multi-Fatnily Rel $3,443 51,512
( Retail(<00ksf) $1.17 $0.51
Rdail(>200kst) 5132 $0.58
Office(pa 1000 SF) $9.74 54.28
i industrial(per 1000 SF) 56.59 $2.89
yr Following Table 9,page 9,Nexus Report
=Top of page 7,Nexus Report.
''Table 11,page 11,Nelms Report.
02/04/97 13:15 DOWLIN6 PSSOC + 5104848291 NO.053 D03
PM Peak Hour
If PM peak hour[TE rata were to be used imtead of the AM rates,the impact fee calculation would
change as follows. The unfimdod costs for the Top 4 projects of$161.6 million would be divided by
71,108 net new PM peat hour trips(between 1997 and 2010)to obtain a new TVTC regional fee rate of
$2,756 per peak boor vehicle trip. Table 12 of the Nears Report would need to be replaced with the
following PM Peat Sour trip table derived from the Fdth Edition of the TIE Trip Gcneration Guide.
Revised Table 12. PM Pat Hoon Trip Gawrati m Rata and Adjnstmeats
Land Use ITE Rafe(PM) Trip Diversion Trip Leagtb Adjusted PM Peat
Category, Adjmhnent Factor Adjustment Factor Hoar Trip Rate
Single Family 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.01
Residential
Multi-Family 0.58 1.00 1.00 0.58
Residential
Retail(Q00 ksf) 6.50 0.20 0.50 0.65
(per 1000 SF)
Retail(>200 kd) 3.50 0.45 0.50 0.79
(per 1000 SF)
Office 1.22 1.00 1.00 1.22
(per 1000 SF)
Industrial 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97
(per 1000 SF)
The revised fee schedule is shown in the following revised Table 13.
Revised Table 13. Preliminary Fee Schedules(1997-2010)(PM Peak Rates)
Land Use Categories Full Action Plan(11 Projects) Selected Projects
s Single Family Residential $6,342 $2,784
Multi-Family Residential 53,642 $1.598
Retail(<200ksO $4.08 $1.79
Retail(>200ksf) $4.96 $2.18
Office(pa 1000 SF) $7.66 $3.36
1 Industrial(per 1000 SF) $6.09 $2.67
Amage of AM and PM Peak Hour
If we average the AM and PM peak hour fees,we gd the table of nates below:
Land Use Categories FuN Action Plan(11 Projects) Selected Projects
Single Fan Ay Residentid 55,882 32,.%2
MWti-FwY*Residentitd $3,543 $1,555
ReW(<200k6t) $2.53 $1.16
i (>200kSQ $3.14 $1.38
once(per 1000 SF) $8.70 $3.82
ktchtstt M(per 1000 SF) $6.34 $2.78
i
j m2w-L
EXHIBIT B
FEE COMPARISON FOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JURISDICTIONS
LAND USES
COMMUNITIES FEES S.F. MF COM OFF IND
Contra Costa County
Jurisdiction DOUGHERTY
MC' 2000 1148 0.80 2.89 2.78
SCC:REG 792 792 0.79 1.27
W-1 FEE 1250 1250
S-1 FEE 937 937
SCC DV FEE 2209 2209 2.21
DCC FEE" 1000 1000
TOTAL W/W-1 FEE 7833 6808
TOTAL W/S-1 FEE 7520 6493
TOTAL 3.80 4.16 2.78
BLACK HAWK
'Adjusted for the 1-680 Auxiliary MC' 2000 1148 0.80 2.89 2.78
Lane project,which is funded in SCC:REG 792 792 0.79 1.27
Contra Costa County by the SCC SCC:SUB 2128 2128 2.13 3.41
Regional Fee. AOB 1612
TOTAL 6532 4068 3.72 7.57 2.78
"ESTIMATE ONLY:The DCC Fee
has not been determined. Range ALAMO
is from$800 to$3500/DU. MC' 2000 1148 0.80 2.89 2.78
The DCC Fee may also include an SCC:REG 792 792 0.79 1.27
Office and Commercial rate. SCC:SUB
AOB 2201 1762 5.50 3.52 1.54
TOTAL 4993 3702 7.09 7.68 4.32
TASSAJARA
MC` 2000 1148 0.80 2.89 2.78
SCC:REG 792 792 0.79 1.27
SCC:SUB
AOB
TATIF 5377 5377 1.65 1.65
TOTAL 8169 7317 3.24 5.81 2.78
111,11111101" 11111lial
OTHER COUNTY
MC' 2000 1148 0.80 2.89 2.78
SCC:REG 792 0.79 1.27
SCC:SUB 2128 2128 2.13 3.41
AOB 1612 1612
TOTAL 5740 5680 3.72 7.57 2.78
City of San Ramon
Jurisdiction SAN RAMON
MC• 2000 1148 0.80 2.89 2.78
SCC:REG 792 475 0.79 1.27
SCC:SUB 2128 1277 2.13 3.41
GENERAL 563 338 1.69 0.76
TOTAL 5483 3238 5.41 8.33 2.76
Town of Danville DNVL AREAS
Jurisdiction Northeast MC` 2000 11481 0.80 2.89 2.78
SCC:REG 792 554 0.79 1.27
SCC:SUB 2128 1490
NE8D 12190 8533
TOTAL 17110 11725 1.59 4.16 2.78
S_ycamore Vlly. MC' 2000 1148 0.80 2.89 2.78
SCC:REG 792 554 0.79 1.27
SCC:SUB 2128 1490
SVBD 14937 10456
SVBDDI 8388 5872
TOTAL 28245 19520 1.59 4.16 2.78
Tassajara
MC` 2000 1148 0.80 2.89 2.78
SCC:REG 792 554 0.79 1.27
SCC:SUB 2128 1490
TATIF 6314 4420
TOTAL 11234 7612 1.59 4.16 2.78
OTHER AREAS
MC' 2000 1148 0.80 2.89 2.78
SCC:REG 792 554 0.79 1.27
SCC:SUB 2128 1490
GENERAL 2000 1400 4.50 4.50
Page 1 TOTAL 6920 4592 6.09 8.66 2.78
FEE COMPARISON FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY JURISDICTIONS
LAND USES
COMMUNITIES FEES S.F. MF COM OFF IND
ALAMEDA CO.
TVTC 2582 1555 1.38 3.82 2.78
TIF 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 2582 1555 1.38 3.82 2.78
.,.« u;.<, ..,. ,., -m.«� _ <'�= ��.3v.,„ r.:.. -... - �...�sz.,a•,�",,.mm
BAST DUBLIN
JTVTC 2582 1555 1.38 3.82 2.78
TIF 4182 2928 5.66 9.60 5.66
TOTAL 6764 4483' 7.04 13.42 8.44
DUBLIN DOWNTOWN
TVTC 2582 1555 1.38 3.82 2.78
TIF 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 2582 1555 1.38 3.82 2.78
u�
DUBLIN REMAINDER
TVTC 2582 1555 1.38 3.82 2.78
TIF 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 2582 1555 1.38 3.82 2.78
la x a � " 4 ,QAE, *. ._ ,,tea,
,
v ?xfs`�, '���, .2 i,;, �.r,N�s ;.,.�,. ,. n I b�K' nN✓v�acSv-�a+.r-,".E ,..v...:
LIVERMORE
TVTC 2582 1555 1.38 3.82 2.78
TIF 2036 1222 3.92 5.00 1.14
TOTAL 4618 2777 5.30 8.82 3.92
PLEASANTON
(Hacienda Ass. Dist.) TVTC 2582 1555 1.38 3.82 2.78
TIF 0 0 0.00 2.71 0.00
TOTAL 2582 1555 1.38 6.53 2.78
u
PLEASANTON
(Remainder) TVTC 2582 1555 1.38 3.82 2.78
TIF 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 2582 1555 1.38 3.82 2.78
,T
Page 2
EXHIBIT C
March 1997
DRAFT TVTC RESOLUTION
TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT FEE POLICY
-I I" .Tie �s :� #n»::>s:; :: : � � . tin ::rr l k+ � t :::'>" #± I e><: r .c..�fi� r>
WHEREAS, Each Tri-Valley Jurisdiction has adopted the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan
Action Plan TVTPAP «.;::,.;:.:; >:.;::::: ..:<.;:.:.:,: ;;;«.>:;;.:.>::::.:. n
( ...: rYal::: t n;ifiar :;:a d a reed to
pursue the joint adoption of Transportation Development Fees and,
and assist On the funding Gf SUGh a plan and,
WHEREAS, Certain mutually agreed to policies must be adhered to by each of the Tri-
Valley jurisdictions if an equitable Fee Program is to be enacted by each
jurisdiction.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the following policies
aefcr�rpcijimi
#fie
')" VIleynttipn# E
.................
par
1) Each jurisdiction shall adopt their own version of the "Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fee", (MDF), in substantially the same
language as each of the other jurisdictions, including the a i l ii priority
projects shown on Attachment A.
2) That the +n+t+al pi``Qj fee rates shall be as in Attachment oifidi
d-fi—
cni ! must be gen t ex� €g li tai fee cedes Tri
idiGfi�CrtS..:.: .ur2t:.lt:.r .ltl< rtd.. :' .ii .f .fcx . tl rid
1 'ji ...:ot�ons shall 1e anay :d f4 estma#e tie tatal.f� dnfI
nil w lig ther rid ' t "#
3) The changes in any jurisdiction's "Tri-Valley Transportation Development
Fee" Affil s14a4 not be depe unilaterally and will i i#i` eata+4,
comprehensive review by each of the Tri-Valley Jurisdictions in terms of
equity and impact of the changes on the completion of those stated
projects contemplated to be funded by the MDF.
4) That a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) will be formed to het
esue the irrjr by a-member
e each»:<::Wts 1. 10 ;:;:;:lrt:;::a c r c ::>:w� ::>::Ih :::>:TVTO
a9 ::::: .::.::::. :.:
t i;rti tr tve;gut to ides;
1
.. t
5) That the fiFSt Gall on the fee funds well be te FeffimbUFSe any Fneneys
i f:t e f s l #r # ie � 11 Q e r' ..
ut: ibKs ::>+ ffii :an ;ed>:a. ::> efr 'usdi #rr~ .< '
> r;> r.: arm :::::: ::::fh :::>::::>: fkned:::. td ::::::... . . Dld::: :. :r
..: :: :: ......::::::::.:: ::::::,
PIMP(
11'ids: ::.:::.:..: >:.�ss �a ...����:..� p��n�t�c��.:..r��:;:th�:.:'1''�T�1=
.,.... . .
. . `.
f
.rr ::: ..R0.1 # ::Ra :
flr€ n:> �t#110
e >< : aiitivvl
adi ;:::: >::.>s €so :.en .: r r. rvs::::: rd.
Gess r.XWWO.Val
tla: to::::::€se
:X: n.
:::> :::: :
>::> : ...... .
:a# .r..::. xtra ;::> nd ;;'
....................
. ....:::::::: ::.::::::::::::::::::: :: : :::::::
.................:.
:.::..:. ....:..
;:;.. : . ' rrztrn rpt :.:uri .::»; oth � xmi
'63 Reimbursement of funds advanced by member jurisdictions shall include
interest fixed at five percent.
74 That the P.49F Fate6 shall be -hased- en the aveFage of AM and PM peak
n the T-FI Valley
:::::::.:::.:::::::::::::.::::::::::::::.::::.:..P :. .
Peatv €r #r:.:r ratad; uni:. an.>.< se> te Ayes:::
.:::.;:::.;:::.: R...:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::.::.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;::.;;: :.;:.;:.;;;;;:.;:.;:.:
enar,t the TIT—DF
: 6`1-;;
T
da .
: ..T = h :::is is iY:v:::::::::::':.:.::::•:.i.;:;:::::.:::•::
•:::.::.:.:: P
men
.................. ir :a•:•::iiiiiiY:' d:..:'.::::i:'v <
..
b .
'aTIs#r
That the fees will be adjusted at-east every five years, or as
needed, tot <€ " d
...............:...:::::::.::.P::::::::::::::::::
2
f�
project cost estimates, rates of development, project priorities and
external funding commitments. Each update shall also include a
financial plan, € 1asle cash flow and project estimates.
1'f That f rates i
8} fee tes w II pautomatically dlrtkS€5;#c
-f::0. 'the construction
0.".;::::.::..............
cost index published in Engineering News Record.
"1 That additional projects may be added t >`<f >> r�a1< 1ist >b
unanimous vote of all TVTC jurisdictions, }�" + ea
PFqjerats " provided that
the fee rate and cash flow can accommodate the added projects}
Vitas well as the currently funded projects.
11'.3'. 4 Tri-Valley jurisdictions agree to mutually seek external funding for
' 'Call PFiWity projects P. and, if successful, support the
carryover of any excess funds for'implementation of the tea
t
priority ::........... :.
projectksncnrnin lRcne
.
.1; 4-33 That eEach jurisdiction shall levy the MDF on all
development not legally precluded from the and that any
shallthe P.'TDF FeqWiFeFR8At.W.
�Or"rr�e�#s will ��`i ..
...1.
::h: ::::::: ::::: .af �e ........ .. :
1 :44} That-TNTC may adopt exemption rules by unanimous agreement.
(i. e. ap " IIew ineeme housing, OF 9theF publie. needs).
r€ac�:<t :: . .r:co a
..........................::............................:............:::::.:Y::.::.
tvtc\trl2.dan
3
The Board of SupervisorsContra Phil Batchelor
Clerk of the Board
and
County Administration Building County Administrator
651 Pine Street, Room 106 Costa (510)335.1900
Martinez,California 94553-1293 County
Jim Rogers,1st District
Gayle B.Uilkema,2nd District s e-•L
Donna Gerber,3rd District
Mark DeSaulnier,4th District
Joe Canclamilla,5th District
o: ;: : _ .'s • May 6, 1997
Cep.; -. .•GP"
ST'9 EOUN�
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
Mr. Hermann Welm, Chair
Traffic Engineering
Post Office Box.520
200 Old Bernal Avenue
Pleasanton, CA 94556
Dear Chairman Welm:
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE NEXUS ANALYSIS AND DRAFT TRI-VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE RESOLUTION (TVTDF)
The Board of Supervisors, in consultation with neighboring elected officials, have revised
the Draft MDF Resolution to reflect the County's regional interests, jointly shared by our
neighbors in San Ramon and Danville. The Board of Supervisors would appreciate
TVrC's consideration of the attached revisions (Exhibit "C") which are consistent with the
recommendations from County Counsel.
The Board of Supervisors requests that the TVTC evaluate the burden of the
transportation fees on future development in the TVTC area,,relative to the total growth
and the impact of new trips from sources not paying the fee. The Board of Supervisors
wants assurance that exempting new trips from the MDF will not unfairly burden fee
paying developments in Contra Costa County.
Sincerely yours,
Mark DeSaulnier, Chair
Board of Supervisors
djpy:%dpulo\Mcnex.Rr
Enclosures: Board Order, April 7, 1997
A2 ti00,f)
The Board of Supervisors Contra �;'��i�
am
County Administration BuildingCOSta �yAftis�oo�
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Martinez,California 94553-1293 County
Jim FWprs,1st District
Gayle S.Ulikeme,2nd District
Donna Gerber,3rd District •f
Hark DsSsulnisr,4th District
Joe CanelemUie,5th District
srA.c6vK`�
May 14, 1997
Honorable Peter L. Spinetta, Presiding Judge
Coordinated Trial Courts of Contra Costa County
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Judge Spinetta:
On behalf of all the members of the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors, we wish to express our appreciation to you and all
members of the Bench of the Coordinated Trial Courts for the most
informative luncheon meeting. I think all of us learned a great
deal about the progress that has been made in all areas of Court
activity as well as the major steps taken thus far towards full
coordination of the Trial Courts.
We are most thankful for the hard work of all the judicial officers
as well as the staff in making the Courts of this County a true
success story. The fact that this has been done in an era of
scarce County resources and inadequate State funding makes your
achievements all the more remarkable. We are also cognizant of
your needs, particularly in the facility areas . We are currently
working with you in completing a Justice Facilities Master Plan and
we believe that this plan will help all of us make informed
decisions concerning the need and location of future facilities .
Again, thanks for your hospitality and we look forward to
continuing to work with the Court in a cooperative manner.
Sincerely,
"ec
Mark DeSaulnier, Chair
Board of Supervisors