HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04152003 - SD2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SDZ
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP
- Contra
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Costa
_
County
DATE: April 15, 2003
�osTA COU
SUBJECT: Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC)Actions Related to the Tri-Valley Transportation
ortation
Development Fee
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) ENDORSE TVTC's approval of the Interim Adjustment to the Tri-Valley Transportation
ortation
Development Fee (TVTDF). (Exhibit 1)
2) ENDORSE TVTC's approval of Addendum I to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
for TVTD Fees. (Exhibit 2)
3) ENDORSE TVTC's approval of the 2003 Update of the Tri-Valley Transportation
Council Strategic Expenditure Plan (SEP). (Exhibit 3)
FISCAL IMPACT
None to the General Fund. The recommended action would lead to an increase in funding
for specified transportation projects. The new fee study would be funded by TVTDF Program
revenue.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Tri Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) includes Contra Costa and Alameda counties,
and the cities of Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. The TVTC was
formed to address transportation issues of common interest. In 1997,the TVTC unanimously
recommended to its member jurisdictions the adoption of a uniform development fee, known
as the Tri Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF). All participating jurisdictions
supported this recommendation by adopting ordinances establishing uniform development
fees in the Tri-Valley area dedicated to specified regional transportation projects.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATOR '
4 F4rN
./IAECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR - RECOMMENDATION OF BOAR OMMITTEE
�APPROVE - OTHER
SIGNATURES .
ACTION OF B ON April 15, 2003 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
X UNANIMOUS AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
(ABSENT ) )
AYES: NOES: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SHOWN.
DISTRICT III SEAT VACANT
ATTESTED April 15, 2003
Contact: John Cunningham (925/335-1243) JOHN SWEETEN CLERK OF
cc: Community Development Department(CDD) '
SUPERVISORS
Public Works Department THE BOARD OF AND COU Y ADMINISTRATOR
TVTC(via CDD)
BY , DEPUTY
G:1Transportation\Cunninghamltvtclfee inc easelapr 15 03 board order\board order.doc
Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC)Actions Related to the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee
April 15, 2003
Page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued)
In 2001, the TVTC initiated the process to update the SEP. This included updating project
cost estimates, revenue sources and schedules. The total cost estimate to build the 10
remaining projects in the fee program has gone up by about 65 percent since the first
estimates were developed in 1998 ($763 million vs. $460 million) resulting in deficits in
several years of the fee program's cash flow. These deficits would peak at $10.2 million by
FY 2009/10. These deficits assume a continuation of the priorities and commitments
included in the existing Strategic Expenditure Plan. No new funding commitments were
proposed in this calculation.
TVTC requested its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)to examine alternatives to address
this funding shortfall and recommend corrective measures for adoption by the TVTC. The
TAC has completed this work and has drafted a revised fee schedule and Strategic
Expenditure Plan that eliminates this funding deficit and reflects some increases in expected
TVTC project costs. The TAC made a recommendation to TVTC (Exhibit 4),which was heard
at their March 5th meeting.
On January 28, 2003 the Board of Supervisors reviewed a number of options considered b
the TAC and Supervisor Gerber, and submitted Supervisor Gerber's proposal (Exhibit 5)to
TVTC. The proposal was included as an option for consideration by TVTC at their March 5th
meeting. TVTC elected to support the TAC recommendation.
Implementation of the revised fees and expenditure plan requires:
1. Unanimous approval by the TVTC.
2. A written addendum to the JEPA that has been approved by each party to the JEPA.
3. Amended fee ordinance/resolution by each party to the JEPA.
In the past, the steps required to implement the fee ordinance followed the sequence above.
However, the March 5, 2003 TVTC meeting did not include a quorum. In order to speed the
process the TVTC declared its intent to approve, and recommended circulating the following
documents to the parties to the JEPA:
the fee update (Exhibit 1),
the addendum to the JEPA (Exhibit 2), and
the 2003 Update of the TVTC Strategic Expenditure Plan (Exhibit 3).
The approval mentioned above is tentative given that unanimous action of TVTC is needed
to approve the aforementioned documents. The Board's endorsement of these recent TVTC
actions will indicate to the TVTC that a consensus has been achieved on this update process
and assist the Council in proceeding.
Adoption of these measures will eliminate the projected funding shortfall. The fee
adjustments are considered "interim"as TAC is recommending a new TVTC fee nexus study
be conducted in the spring of 2003. This study will update projects costs and land
development projections for use in determining the need for further revisions to the TVTC fee
schedule later this year.
One change of note in the SEP is the elimination of the language describing the Vasco Road
Safety Improvements as "lower priority" and "not recommended for funding in the next 10
years of the program". This will improve the priority status of the project. The updated SEP
was not available for this report but will be seen in the April 23rd TVTC packet.
The TVTC will meet again on April 23rd in the Town of Danville offices. If a new Supervisor
has not been seated for District 3 the alternate will need to attend in order to enable TVTC to
take a final action on this fee adjustment.
x � :+
TABLE 2
PROPOSED INTERIM ADJUSTMENT
TO THE TVTD FEE
(Adjust the Fee Amounts for MF Residential, Office and Industrial Uses to Match
the Percent Level of the Nexus Fee for SF Residential; No New Allocations of
TVTDF Funds)
,Curr:ent, /o:of
Pro used % of .
........... .........
............
N xu Fee Pro od Fee Nexus Fee
Land Use Current,Fee (CCY"Ad'listed.
o C:Cf.Ad us ed
71
SF Residential $1,711/unit 27.7% $1,711/unit 27.7%
0.0%
MF Residential :$1,198/unit' 30.5% $1,087/unit f 27.7%
Office $1.14/sf 10.3% $3.07/sf 27.7%
+169.3%
Retail $1.14/sf 80.3%* 80.3%
00%
Industrial $0.86/sf 11.5% $2.08/sf 27.7%
+141.9%
Other $685/peak trip 34.0%** $685/ eak trip 34.0%
�
00/o
o ,
Based on the average Retail Fee from the Nexus Study.
** Includes an average adjustment factor of 24%to the initial Nexus Fee for"Other"uses that do not fit
into the standard Retail, Office or Industrial categories. This adjustment factor was determined based
on a TVTC review of TVTD Fees in 1999 to make the Fee for"Other"uses more equitable(i.e.,
proportional to the Fee paid by traditional Retail, Office or Industrial-uses).
G:ITVTCISEP Update lFee adjustment proposal MarOl doc
2/3/2003
ADDENDUM I
TO
JOINT EXERCISE OF
POWERS AGREEMENT
PERTAINING TO
Tri-Valley Transportation Development
Fees for Traffic Mitigation
BY AND AMONG
The County of Alameda
The County of Contra Costa
The City of Dublin
The City of Livermore
The City of Pleasanton
The City of San Ramon
The Town of Danville
RECITALS
WHEREAS, each of the Tri-Valley jurisdictions adopted the Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement (JEPA) for the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees
(TVTDF); and
WHEREAS, all TVTC jurisdictions have resolved to cooperatively participate
and adopt uniform TVTD Fee rates; and
. WHEREAS, the TVTD Fee applies to new development in all seven-member
jurisdictions within the Tri-Valley area; and
WHEREAS, revenues from the TVTD -Fees are used to fund the regional
transportation improvements identified in the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan
(TVTP/AP) and the Strategic Expenditure Plan(SEP); and
WHEREAS, the TVTC commissioned a "fee nexus study" in 1996 to establish
the TVTD Fee based on traffic impacts from new development and the costs for the
transportation improvements identified in the TVTP/AP; and
WHEREAS, the adopted fee in 1998 for Office development was only 10.3% of
the resulting fee from the "fee nexus study" for this type of land use; and
WHEREAS, the adopted fee in 1998 for Industrial development was only 11.5%
of the resulting fee from the"fee nexus study" for this type of land use; and
WHEREAS, the I-580/I-680 Interchange Improvements project is now complete;
and
WHEREAS, the estimated total cost for the existing ten TVTDF projects has
increased by approximately 65%; and
WHEREAS, the construction cost index for the San Francisco Bay Area has risen
by approximately 14% since the adoption of the TVTD Fee in 1998; and
WHEREAS, an estimated $10.20 million in cash flow deficit is anticipated to
occur by fiscal year 2009-10 based on the current expenditure plan and the scheduling
requirements of TVTDF projects; and
WHEREAS, the gap between fee revenues and regional transportation
improvement costs has left some projects unable to be fully funded, and will likely result
in the delayed delivery of these improvements; and
WHEREAS, Subsection 13.b of the JEPA specifies that for non-automatic
TVTD Fee adjustments agreed upon by the Parties, the'amount of the adjustment shall be
Addendum I Page 2 of 5
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement 1/31/03
TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation
included in a written addendum to the JEPA that shall be approved by each Party and in
amendments of each adopted fee resolution or ordinance; and
WHEREAS, each Party adopted a resolution amending the previously adopted
TVTD Fee resolution or ordinance; and
WHEREAS, each Party approved this addendum (Addendum I) to the JEPA;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the JEPA is amended as
follows:
Revise Section 9. Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee Amount of the JEPA
to read as follows:
The initial Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fees, effective the date this addendum
is approved by all Parties, shall be as follows:
Land Use Type Fee Per Unit
Single Family Residential $1,711 Dwelling Unit
Multi Family Residential $15087 Dwelling Unit
Office $3.07 Square foot of gross floor area
Retail $1.14 Square foot of gross floor area
Industrial $2.08 Square foot of gross floor area
Other Uses $685 Average a.m./p.m. peak hour trip*
*Peak-hour trips will be determined from the latest revision to the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual or other rate schedule as agreed to by
the TVTC. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an applicant for a Land Use Entitlement who
is dissatisfied with the number of peak-hour trips, as calculated by the City/County, may
appeal the determination to the Council/Board of Supervisors. If such an appeal is
granted by the Council/Board of Supervisors, and the Council/Board of Supervisors
adjusts the number of peak-hour trips, the City/County shall have such decision ratified
by five members of the TVTC. Absent such ratification, the full amount of the fee must
be paid by the applicant.
Addendum I Page 3 of 5
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement 1/31/03
TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation
Signatures
This Addendum I to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement may be signed in
counterparts with the signature pages attached to form a complete document.
APPROVED BY:
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
By: Dated:
Its:
Attest:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
By: Dated:
Its:
Attest:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
CITY OF SAN RAMON
By: Dated:
Its:
Attest:
City Clerk
Addendum I Page 4 of 5
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement 1/31/03
TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation
TOWN OF DANVILLE
By: Dated:
Its:
Attest:
Town Clerk
CITY OF DUBLIN
By: Dated:
Its:
Attest:
City Clerk
CITY OF LIVERMORE
By: Dated:
Its:
Attest:
City Clerk
CITY OF PLEASANTON
By: Dated:
Its:
Attest:
City Clerk
G:ITYTCISEP UpdatelAddendum Ito JEPA fee ndjust.doc
Addendum I Page 5 of 5
Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement 1/31/03
TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
STRATEGIC EXPENDITURE PLAN
2003 UPDATE
WITH INTERIM FEE ADJUSTMENT
"PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION"
I. Introduction
II. Project Descriptions and Status Reports
III. Project Priorities
IV. Project Funding
V. Project Sponsors
Table 1 - TVTDF Funding Plan
Table 2 - Project Revenue Sources-
Io INTRODUCTION
The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) and its constituent members adopted the "Tri-
Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance" (TVTP/AP) in
1995. The Plan marked a common understanding and agreement on the Tri-Valley's
transportation concerns and directions for improvements. Among other things, the Plan
presented eleven specific transportation improvements to be given high priority for funding and
implementation (Table 1). These eleven projects were subsequently to be included in the Tri-
Valley Transportation Development Fee (TVTDF), which was adopted by the TVTC and ratified
by all seven-member jurisdictions in 1998. In 1999, the TVTC adopted an Expenditure Plan for
the TVTDF to establish a funding plan for the regional fee projects. Since that adoption, a total
of $17,547,476 million in fees and $126,182 in interest were remitted by member agencies
through December 31, 2002. The TVTDF Trust Fund earned $6511.,108 in interest income over
this time period to bring the total revenue credited to the fund to $18,324,766. From these funds
a total of $8,784,865 has been disbursed, leaving a balance of $9,539,901 to spend on the
TVTDF projects.
In July 2000, the TVTC updated the TVTP/AP, which was included in the 2000 Update to the
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Subsequently, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) issued the 2001 Update to the Regional Transportation Plan.
In addition, new funding sources, such as the renewal of Measure B in Alameda County, have
been approved by the voters. This update to the Strategic Expenditure Plan incorporates and
builds upon these updates to the regional and sub-regional transportation outlook for the Tri--
Valley area. In addition, some of the original list of transportation improvement projects have
been completed, and schedules and funding for others have changed. Consequently, at this time,
it is appropriate to review and. update the TVTDF Expenditure Plan to reflect these changes.
This report summarizes progress-to-date on implementation of the original Expenditure Plan
projects and includes proposed revisions to the Plan.
Amendments to the TVTDF Expenditure Plan require the unanimous approval of the seven
TVTC member jurisdictions. Following approval of a Draft TVTDF Expenditure Plan by the
TVTC, it will be referred to the member jurisdictions for comment and ratification.
Revenues from the TVTDF program have been applied to several of the 1999 Expenditure Plan's
original list of high priority projects:
I-580/1-680 Interchange Approximately $5.6 million was initially appropriated to the
Alameda County Transportation Authority as the "local match" for this important regional
improvement. This amount included approximately $4.2 million in funds provided to the
project to fulfill its funding needs and $1.4 million in reimbursements to the Cities of Dublin
and Pleasanton for prior contributions. This project was completed in June 2002 and the
TVTDF obligation for the funding of the project has been satisfied.
2 1/31/2003
• State Route 84 Project Study Report and Environmental Review The TVTDF
Expenditure Plan initially appropriated $1.5 million to the City of Livermore for completion
of preliminary engineering and environmental review for improvements to State Route 84
between 1-580 and I-680. Approximately $1.2 million was provided to the City of
Livermore, as requested, for preparation of a Project Study Report (PSR). The PSR has been
prepared and is expected to be approved by Caltrans in Spring 2003.
• I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange The Expenditure Plan initially appropriated $1.6
million for improvements to the I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange, on the Dublin/San
Ramon border. Design of this project is expected to be completed by Spring 2003, with
construction to begin in Fall 2003.
West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station was
tentatively programmed $4.0 million in the Expenditure Plan. Subsequently, this project has
moved closer to implementation as an innovative private/public partnership involving the
Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, BART and a partnering private developer.
Additionally, several of the remaining Expenditure Plan projects have been completed or are
advancing toward construction:
I-680 Auxiliary Lanes (Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon Road) Preliminary Engineering
and Environmental review for this project have been completed; with construction slated to
begin in 2004/05.
I-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road Interchange Modifications The Expenditure Plan
initially appropriated a total of $1.6 million for this project in fiscal years 2009/10 and
2010/11. Caltrans has approved the Project Study Report, and the Project
Report/Environmental Document was approved in July 2002. Project design is nearly
completed for the proposed improvements on the Dublin side of the freeway only. This portion
of the project is referred to as Phase 1, and Phase 2 will consist of all of the proposed
improvements on the Pleasanton side of the freeway. Pleasanton has elected not to implement
Phase 2 at this time. The Dublin side of the freeway currently experiences safety issues related
to traffic weaving from the diagonal westbound off-ramp to make a left turn at the San Ramon
Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. This traffic weaving condition is critical due to the close
proximity of Dublin Boulevard to the 1-580 interchange. The project would create a signalized
off-ramp intersection, which would eliminate this weaving problem. Phase 1 project
construction is expected to start in Summer 2003. The Phase 2 project on the Pleasanton side
will occur in the future.
I-680 HOV Lanes (Sunol Grade) High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on northbound
and southbound I-680 over the Sunol Grade were included in the TVTP/AP and in the
Expenditure Plan, although no funds were appropriated for this project. Subsequently, the I-
680 HOV lanes over the Sunol Grade benefited from Federal and State attention, and were
funded by those sources. At this time, the HOV lanes are under construction, and no TVTDF
funding appears to be needed to complete this project.
3 1/31/2003
• Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements The City of San Ramon recently completed
improvements to Crow Canyon Road from Bollinger Canyon Road to the Alameda County
Line. The improvements included an extension of the westbound truck climbing lane, and
widening in-the eastbound direction to provide for an exclusive right-turn lane at Bollinger
t
Canyon Road. -The transition to a two-lane roadway at the County Line-was also improved,
and a major landslide was stabilized. The remaining work on this project includes safety
improvements on approximately 3 miles of Crow Canyon Road from Bollinger Canyon Road
in Contra Costa County to one mile north of Norris-Canyon Road. This project.will consider
design alternatives for roadway alignment, lane and shoulder widths, and roadway curvature
for enhanced traffic safety and operations on-Crow Canyon Road within Alameda County.
Following are updated summaries of the remaining TVTDF Expenditure Plan projects, focusing
on revisions to their schedules and funding plans. The project summary sheets include the
projects' descriptions, schedules and funding plans. No.new projects are proposed to be added to
the Expenditure Plan at this time.
The funding and scheduling targets from the individual projects have been compiled in Table 1,
yielding an estimate of the cash flow requirements and revenue estimates for the TVTDF
Expenditure Plan. Table 2 shows sources of funding for the eleven high priority projects,
including TVTDF funds. Since the TVTDF is a development fee, which is not appropriate for
securing bonded debt, the Expenditure Plan is based on a"pay-as-you-go"balancing of projected
revenues and expenditures over the term of the Plan.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND STATUS REPORTS
The eleven projects included in the TVTDF are described on the following pages. These
descriptions include the involved agencies, the current cost estimates, the status of the project, the
current funding situation for the project, the schedule, and a synopsis of the need for the project.
This information has been obtained from a variety of sources and represents the most current
available information on each project. The locations of these projects are described in Figure A.
Maps showing the location and limits of each project area are included for reference. The TVTDF
projects are as follows:
1. I-5801-680 FLYOVER AND HOOK RAMPS
2A. STATE ROUTE 84 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS-I-5 80 TO I-680
2B. ISABEL ROUTE 84/1-580 INTERCHANGE
e
3. I-680 AUXILIARY LANES BETWEEN BOLLINGER CANYON ROAD AND DIABLO ROAD
4. WEST DUBLIN PLEASANTON BART STATION
5. I-5 80 HOV LANES FROM TASSAJARA ROAD TO VASCO ROAD
6. I-680 HOV LANES FROM STATE ROUTE 84 TO TOP OF SUNOL GRADE
7. I-5 80/FOOTHILL ROAD-SAN RAMON ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS
8. 1-680/ALCOSTA BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS
9. CROW CANYON ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
10. VASCO ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
11. EXPRESS BUS SERVICE
4 1/31/2003
cqy .
3.
1-680
Auxiliary
Lanes
\ m RD. 1 0•
� � Vasco 1�0 �' Ate` Il
9. 1-680/Alcosta Ate" ° Rd'
Crow Interchange _
r
Canyon m
.\ m n
<
,-�` ��� /- D a o
7. 1■ m
5
�. . p
I-580IF'oothill/San Flyover D 1580 HOV °z
Ramon Interchange
ter► � �� v m
:1 :1 z
C
cn F
rnM
4. v EAST AVE. II
BART
o
BLVD
SA • >
Station E- "'- ` m
S
a
m
.:1
2■
Rt. 84 -�
Corridor
JPL�
6.
1-680 HOVE
r►�
LEGEND North
Not to Scale
Project Location
TVTC Expenditure Plan
Figure
Index Map
89-202-1199-LH
Projed� No. 1
I-580/I-680 Flyover and Hook Ramps.
Involved Agencies Caltrans and the Alameda.County Transportation Authority
Description The project consists of the construction of a southbound to eastbound
flyover, a northbound to eastbound direct connector, southbound on and off
hook ramps and a northbound on ramp.
Cost Estimate The total project cost is approximately$120 million.
Status The project is complete.
Fending Most of the project is funded by Measure B. TVTC initially appropriated
$5.6 million in TVTDF match funds,.including approximately$4.2 in funds
provided to the project to fulfill its funding needs and $1.4 million in
reimbursements to the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton for prior
contributions.
Schedule The project is complete.
Need The project was approved by the voters of Alameda. County as a portion of
the Measure B sales tax program.
5 1f31/2003
.yam
b
'0
oUBUN BLVD. '
Construct L
Hook Ramps
m
-o
ST.PATRI CK WY.
Previous Improvement
Remove Ramp -
Construct Flyover
,,. 11161152 11111111111111,1,11111,111
Remove Ramp
•11f11161//,1�
Remove Ramp
Construct Direct Connector
LEGEND Horth
Project Location
Not to Scale
TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure
I--580/1=650 Flyover -and Hook Ramps
(Completed-June 2002)
1
89-202-6102-CK
Prpieet; No. 2A
.State Route 84 Corridor Improvements: I-580 to I-680
Involved Agencies Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, Alameda County, and Caltrans
Description This road improvement project will be constructed in several stages.with a
variety of funding sources. The ultimate configuration is expected to
consist of six lanes on Isabel Avenue from I-580 to Stanley Boulevard and
four lanes from Stanley Boulevard to I-680. The total length of the project
is approximately 10 miles.
Cost Estimate Total project cost is $254 million for the roadway portions of the project.
See Project No. 2B for the companion I-580 interchange portion of the
project.
Status Isabel Avenue is a new two-lane roadway from I-580 at Airway Boulevard
to Vallecitos Road. The existing two-lane roadway remains from Isabel
Avenue to near I-680, with a short portion of four-lane divided roadway
approaching I-680. The City of Livermore is working with Caltrans to
relocate State Route 84 to the Isabel Avenue corridor. it is expected that
the relocation will be accomplished within the next few years.
The TVTC funded ($1,164,000) preparation of a Project Study Report
(PSR) for this project. The PSR should be complete and approved by
Caltrans in Spring 2003. The PSR defines this project and identifies
implementation phases and the costs associated with those phases.
Alameda County's new Measure B program includes $70 million for a
four-lane facility from I-580 to Vallecitos Road plus possible
improvements through the Pigeon Pass section of Route 84.
Funding The TVTC allocates $24 million in future TVTDF funds for this project.
Schedule An initial phase project (S41.9 million) from Isabel Avenue through
Pigeon Pass could begin in 2003/04 and be completed in 2009/10. There
is no current schedule for completion of the new Measure B project to
widen Isabel Avenue to four lanes between I-580 and Vallecitos Road.
Project Need The project would relieve traffic congestion on portions of I-680 and I-580
in Tri-Valley as well as improve access to regional routes from portions of
Livermore and Pleasanton. The existing two-lane roadway between
Livermore and I-680 is operating at capacity during peak commute
periods.
6 1/31/2003
Segment
Stage 1: Construct initial interchange
with 2 lane overpass; extend Portola See Project 2B
to Isabel and remove Portola ramps. description
Stage 2: Construct 6 lane overpass
and ultimate interchange. 1
. `
Pleasanton ��•
STANI.IE:Y BLVD' Livermore
2
Segment 2
Construct 4/6 lane expressway.
03M
r
m
•
3
C1�Os
Segment
3
g
Stage 1: Construct uphill truck lanes;
improve deficient curves.
Stage 2: Construct 4 lane expressway.
Nate: Segment 0 is TVTDF Project 2B
Segments(2Dand are TVTDF Project 2A
North
LEGEND
Not to Scale
�■�� Project Location
TVTC Expenditure Plan f=igure
State Route 84 Corridor Improvements 1-580 to I-580 2A
89-202-3/02-LH
Project No. 2R
Isabel Route 84/I-580 Interchange
Involved Agencies City of Livermore and Caltrans
Description This project consists of a new partial-cloverleaf interchange on Isabel
Avenue/Route 84 at I-580. The ultimate configuration includes a 6-lane
overcrossing. The interchange project will be constructed in two phases.
The project includes removal of ramps at the adjacent Portola Avenue
interchange and construction of a new roadway connection on the north
side of I-580 between Portola Avenue and the new interchange.
Cost Estimate The total cost of the interchange is $92 million. The initial Phase I project
is estimated to cost $64 million, and the Phase. II project to complete the
interchange is estimated to cost $28 million.
Status A Project Study Reportfor the interchange has been approved. The
ED/PR for Phase I is underway, and it is expected to be approved in 2003.
Phase I design will begin in 2003. Construction is expected to be
complete in 2006.
Funding .Funding for the Phase I interchange includes .Measure B ($20 million), .
STIP ($31 million), TEA 21 ($10.4 million), and City of Livermore
Traffic Impact Fees ($2.6. million). Funding for Phase II will be City of
Livermore Traffic Impact Fees and other funding that may become
available.
Schedule The initial Phase I interchange will be complete in 2006, and the full
interchange is expected to be complete by 2015.
Project Need The interchange project will provide direct access from I-580 to future
State Route 84 located along the Isabel Avenue corridor in Livermore.
This project will improve traffic conditions in downtown Livermore as
well as partially relieve traffic conditions in the I-580 and I-680 corridors
in Tri-Valley.
7 1/31/2003
N.CANYON PKWY.
Construct
New Interchange
To N.Livermore Ave,
-4--To Airway Blvd,Interchange o
o�
. 9G
AIRWAY BLVD.
D
Im
M
r
m
LEGEND
North
Project Location
Not to Scale
TVTC Expenditure Pian Figure
Isabel Route 84/1-580 interchange
2B
69-202-3102-LH
Wed No. 3
I-680 Auxiliary Lanes between Bollinger Canyon Road in
San Ramon and Diablo Road in Danville
Involved Agencies Coma Costa Transportation Authority and Cities of Danville and San Ramon
Description This project will construct both northbound and southbound auxiliary lanes in
the I-680 corridor from Bollinger Canyon Road in San Ramon to Diablo Road in
Danville. These improvements include anadditional 12-foot lane between
interchanges in the northbound and southbound directions, retaining walls, and
sound walls in the corridor. Also included are ramp improvements and structure
widening over Laurel Drive between Sycamore Valley Road and Diablo Road.
The project will be constructed in three segments: (1) Diablo to Sycamore; (2)
Sycamore to Crow Canyon; and(3)Crow Canyon to Bollinger.
Cost Estimate Segment 1 $13.8 million
Segment 2 $33.2 million
Segment 3 $4_6 million
TOTAL: $55.6 million(includes project development and construction.)
Status A Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR) was completed.in February 2000. The
environmental document was approved in October 2002.
Funding The project will be funded with_;a variety of sources, including STIP, Measure C,
and development fees (TVTDF: $12.0 million and SCC JEPA: $8.5 million).
Segment 1 is fully funded with Measure C ($4.8 million) and STIP funds ($9.0
million). Segment.3 is proposed for joint.funding with Measure C ($6.3 million)
and development fees (totaling $23 million). Segment 2 is proposed to be
funded with Measure C ($3.5 million), development fees ($18.2 million), and
yet-to-be secured STIP° funds. The TVTC allocates $12 million in future
TVTDF funds for this project.
Schedule Final Design for Segments 1 and 3 is currently underway. Assuming that
regional fees can be advanced, construction of both of these. segments could
begin in early 2004. Construction of Segment 2 is scheduled to start in 2007,
and is dependent upon securing additional STIP funds.
Project Need Traffic studies of future conditions along I-680 indicate. that peak hour traffic
volumes on the existing six mixed flow lanes and two HOV lanes already
exceeds capacity at some locations. The auxiliary lane project is not intended to
increase freeway capacity per se, but will mitigate operational problems caused
by merging and diverging vehicles at interchanges. The highest need, in terms of
alleviating existing congestion,is in Segment 1.
8 1/31/2003.
TYPICAL
AUXILIARY LANE
SCHEMATIC
o9ti on-ramp I i
L
SPO
auxiliary
• : lane I I
I i
DIABLO RD.
. i I
off-ram i I
��o• p I I
SYCAMORE VALLE'' Cq�.
1vO T,q
. SSq J
�4,qq
N
� n
L
Construct
z Auxiliary Lanes,
0
. GPN
,Gp`03�1
Nk
O
� O
�O
5 P X02
O�
BOAC,
c
'4AWON RD
O FiD.
O�
North
Not to Scale
LEGEND
■■�� Project Location
TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure
l-68® Auxiliary Lanes 3
89-242-11/98-LH
Proipg:t N10, 4
West Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station
Involved Agencies BART, City of Dublin, and City of Pleasanton
Description The project is the construction of the West Dublin-Pleasanton BART station and
related transit improvements. The project is a joint public and private venture to
build a station on the active BART line,in the median of I-580. The related
transit improvements such as the patron parking garages,kiss ride and bus drop-
offs will be located on both the north(Dublin)and south(Pleasanton) sides of
the freeway on property owned by BART.
Cost Estimate $53 million($58 million-escalated to midpoint of construction)
Status Included in Track 1 of the adopted MTC 2001 Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP).. Included in Track 2 of the adopted renewal of the Measure B Alameda
County transportation sales tax. The EIR for the station was certified by the
BART Board in April 2001. The Master Developer agreement has been
negotiated for the project. The proposed transit village around the West
Dublin/Pleasanton Station will likely include residential units,hotel facilities,
and office space. The EIR for the Transit Village surrounding the Dublin side of
the future station was approved by the BART Board in April 2001 and submitted
to the City of Dublin in mid-201.
Funding The project will be funded utilizing public and private financing mechanisms
available under the California Infrastructure Finance Act. Fund sources.include
lease revenues, tax increments, station revenues and grant sources. The Alameda
County Congestion Management Agency has a $10 million commitment to the
project(as indicated in the RTP). Though the project is included in the Measure
B program, its.placement in Tier 2 makes it unlikely to receive actual revenues
. without a dramatic increase in sales tax receipts over the next twenty years. The
TVTC allocates$4 million in future TVTDF funds for this project.
Schedule Bonds to finance the project have a target sale date of late 2003, with final
design and construction activities to commence within a year of the bond sale.
The project has a current planned opening date in Spring of 2006.
Project Need The construction of the proposed West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station will
address demand that exists within the Tri-Valley for BART service.
9 1/31/2003
a
cn Q• a
�P = .3�
Existing v
Dublin-Pleasanton z
� � o BART 9a
v
cn
0
acr'
. G1rc�O
STONERIOGS O� z
Construct D
W. Dublin-Pleasanton
SOD. �a
BART Station
e°
5
00
r
v
North
Not to Scale
LEGEND
Project Location
TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure
West Dublin-Pleasanton BART Improvements
4
89-202-11/98-LH
Project.No. 5
I-580 HOV Lanes from Tassajara Road to
Vasco Road
Involved Agencies Cities of Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore, Alameda County, and
Caltrans
Description Construction of approximately 8.2 miles of High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV) lanes on I-580 from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road. After addition
of these HOV lanes,this segment of 1-580 will have a total of four mixed
lanes and one HOV lane in each direction. Three alternative locations for
the HOV lanes are being considered: Alt. 1). in the existing median, Alt.
2) designating the inner-most lanes as HOV lanes and widening for an
additional mixed lane on-the outside of the existing roadway, and Alt. 3)
widening the median for future BART and constructing an additional lane
on the outside of the roadway.
Cost Estimate Costs of the three alternatives are $80 million for Alt. 1, $127.8 million for
Alt. 2, and$200.5 million for Alt. 3.
Status A Project Study Report for the project has been completed and approved
by Caltrans. Caltrans is proceeding with environmental studies of the
three alternatives. The environmental work should be complete in 2003.
The Policy Advisory Committee on the 1-580 Corridor/BART To
Livermore Study has passed a motion recommending that a future transit
alternative in the corridor should be located in the 1-580 median and that
Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative for the future HOV lanes.
Funding $25 million in state Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP)funds have
been appropriated for this. project. Additional funding is needed. The
TVTC allocates $8 million in future TVTDF funds for this project.
Schedule The environmental work for this project should be complete in 2003. At
that time, a decision on which alternative to pursue probably will be made.
Project Need - This project is.needed to increase overall person-trip capacity in the 1-580
corridor. Traffic forecasts show that travel demand on 1-580 through the
Tri-Valley will exceed the capacity of the existing freeway. Adding HOV
lanes would encourage carpooling and provide travel timesavings for
existing as well as future express bus services in the corridor.
10 1/31/2003
C
0
CD
.0 U sawlz J
IO W ••
SM z
VASCO RD. 0 a
Q
W
0 LoW
LL
i�
N.LIVERMORE AVE.
J�
Qv
4Q
� iidunw•N tL't
0
cc
0
o
0
cc
C�
cc
;rz
CA
N� N RD.
cc 0 FALL4
i E
u1 J 0
'a
cz
CL
0
.Oti buvrdssvi Cc
' SANTA 011"
Lo
LLJ
00r
Lo
0
N
maw= co
Co
rX.0ject No. fi
I-680 HOV Lanes from State Route 84 to
Top of Sunol Grade
Involved Agencies Caltrans and Alameda County
Description Construct approximately 3.5 miles (seven total lane-miles) of HOV lanes
on I-680 from SR 84 ramps to the top of Sunol Grade at Mission Pass.
After adding these lanes, I-680 would have three mixed lanes and one
HOV lane in each direction of this segment.
Cost estimate Construction of the southbound I-680 HOV lanes between SR 84 and
Calaveras. Boulevard in Milpitas is expected to cost approximately $90
million. The portion within the Tri-Valley area (SR 84 to the top of the
Sunol Grade) constitutes about 35 percent of the total mileage, or
approximately$29 million.
Status This project to construct the highest priority southbound HOV lanes has
committed funding from other sources: It is.likely that the northbound
HOV lane will receive outside funding also. This is a regional project that
involves three counties, the CMAs, Caltrans, and MTC. In addition, the I-
680 Phase II Corridor Study will address future needs of the corridor.
Funding STIP, Federal, TCRP, and potential ACTIA funds will be utilized.
No TVTDF funds are included for this project.
Schedule The southbound project was environmentally approved in September
2000. The northbound project environmental studies are underway and a
draft document was circulated to the public in 2002.
Project Need The southbound' lanes. of I-680 through the Sunol Grade constitute the
second most congested commute in the Say Area. Congestion occurs for a
period of three to four hours.each weekday.
11 1/31/2003
• Qv
qUNOL
•
NILES CANYO1V RO.
�G
7N
Z
m
a
Construct HOV Lanes
sy��io
0
Vqq
�o
. t
LEGEND
North
Project Location Not to Scale
TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure
I-680 HOV Lanes From SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade
�Z
(TrimValleyPortion)
89-202-11/98-LH
PjMie; ct No. 7
I-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road
Interchange Modifications
Involved Agencies City of Dublin and City of Pleasanton
Description To enhance safety and improve traffic operations at the interchange, the
design of the existing I-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road four-quadrant
cloverleaf interchange will be modified, replacing the westbound and
eastbound off loops with diagonal ramps. The two remaining off-ramps
would be signalized at their intersections with the local street. In addition,
the eastbound diagonal off-ramp will be widened to two lanes and a 700-
foot eastbound auxiliary lane on I-580 will be constructed. The project is
located within the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton.
Cost Estimate $4 million for the entire project
Status Caltrans has approved the Project Study Report, and the Project
Report/Environmental Document was approved in July 2002. Project design
is nearly completed for the proposed improvements on the Dublin side of the
• freeway only. This portion of the project is referred to as Phase 1, and Phase
2 will consist of all of the proposed improvements.on the Pleasanton side of
the freeway. Pleasanton has elected not to implement Phase 2 at this time.
Funding The total cost to construct Phase 1 is approximately$2.0 million; the City of
Dublin will use $1.2 million of its 20% set-aside TVTDF revenues to
partially fund Phase 1 construction. The TVTC allocates $0.8 million in
TVTDF funds in fiscal year 2002/03 for the Phase 1 project in Dublin. The
TVTC also allocates an additional $0.8 million in future TVTDF funds for
the Phase 2 project in Pleasanton.
Schedule The City of Dublin is scheduled to start construction of Phase 1 in Summer
2003 to address traffic safety issues.
Project Need The project is needed to ensure adequate access to/from West Dublin-
Pleasanton BART station. In addition,both the Pleasanton and Dublin sides
of the freeway currently experience safety issues related to traffic weaving
from the diagonal off-ramps to make a left turn at the first intersection
removed from the interchange. This traffic weaving condition is more
severe on the Dublin side of the freeway due to the close proximity of
Dublin Boulevard to the I-580 interchange. The project would create a
signalized off-ramp intersection, which would eliminate the weaving
problem.
12 1/31/2003
Phase -2
Phase 1
Install Relocated Ramp
\ 1 •i
#41
I \ ••i
1 ••. Remove Ramps
Install Traffic Signals 1 ••''••.,
! , 11a
-Rd. 1
SAN RAMON RD. loss 4% aaa ► •ao,o '
1 !
f f 1 ,a
a !
1 �
(A • ••, •4.aaaa.a
Remove Ramps ••., o
••. •' Install
Install •''• i Traffic
%\Relocated ,' Signals
Ramp
Construct 700 foot
Auxiliary Lane
/
1 r -
1 �
l I
1 I
1 I .
1 �
1 f
1 � North
/
- Not to Scale
TVTC Figure
Expenditure Plan F�g
lm580/Foothill Boulevard Interchange Modifications 7
89-202-2/02-CK
JEroject Nn. R
-o
I-680/Alcosta Boulevard,Interchange Modifications
Involved Agencies Caltrans and City of San Ramon
Description Reconstruct the southbound off ramp and add a new on ramp at the
I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange to improve operations at the
interchange. This project includes closing the existing southbound off ramp
and removing a traffic signal, building new southbound on/off ramps to the
north of Alcosta Boulevard, and connecting to San Ramon Valley Boulevard
with a new signalized intersection..
Cost Estimate 1 $9.6 million
Status The PSR for this project, which was funded by Measure C, is complete.
This project is included in the City of San Ramon CIP program and project
design is expected to be completed by Spring 2003. The SCC JEPA
designates $2.66 million for the project. TVTC made a preliminary
commitment of $2.0 million for the project, with the remainder to come
from local sources. Project construction is expected to start in Fall 2003.
The TVTDF_funding for this project should be made available to coincide
with the planned construction. t
Funding $2.66 million is identified in the Southern Contra Costa JEPA for this
project. The TVTC allocates $1.6 million in future TVTDF funds for this
project. Other funding sources include $4.34 million in local funds and$3.5
million in 1998 STIP funding..
Schedule See Status above..
Project Need The current interchange is a tight diamond with a busy intersection of two
arterials immediately adjacent to the interchange. Reconstruction of the
southbound ramps into a buttonhook design will remove the middle of three
closely spaced traffic signals on Alcosta and improve safety and capacity in
the area. The interchange traffic volumes are projected to increase as a
result of growth in the area.
� $13.5 million including improvements to the northbound on and off ramps.
13 1/31/2003
Construct New Ramps
and Traffic Signal
Remove Ramp
Remove ALcosrq SLED
Traffic
z
Signal
. . 1
North
Not to Scale
TVTC Expenditure Plan Figure
1=680/Alcosta fInterchange M
. 8
89-202-11/98-LH
Pr��ect No. 9
Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements
InvaIved Agencies Alameda County
Description Safety improvements on approximately 3 miles of Crow Canyon Road from
Bollinger Canyon Road in Contra Costa County to one mile north of Norris
Canyon Road. This project will identify alternatives that address
considerations such as roadway realignment, lane .and shoulder width,
roadway curvature and design speed to improve traffic safety and operations.
Cost Estimate $25 million
Status Project is currently in an advanced stage of project development.
Funding The Alameda County CMA has identified $3.4 million of Tier 1 funds and
$2.7 million of Tier 2 funds for this project in the Alameda Countywide
Transportation Plan.
Schedule The Development Phase is expected to be finalized by Winter 2004.
Project Need This project will provide improved roadway safety by straightening sharp
curves as well as improving traffic flow
14 1/31/2003
\- Completed
n
Constructti
Safety
Improvements -
� cgtiy o�
o
/ X90
Ot,J RD.
Z.
cc
1 NO
N�
Z ~- Gas/
m�LGa,�r'�
o
rr •
U �
N
QO
7S
O�
2 p
�v
�r
•
-a
<0
7-
(P
North
Not to Scale
LEGEND
® Pronject Location
TVTC Expenditure Pian Figure
Crow Canyon Road SafetyImprovements
89-202-3/02-CK
o
J!roieeto. 10
Vasco Road Safety Improvements
Involved Agencies Alameda County, Contra Costa County, and Contra Costa Transportation
Authority
Description This safety project will straighten the alignment of the most northerly one-
mile segment of Vasco Road. This project includes shoulder widening,
curves, grade modifications, and the addition of truck climbing lanes. to
improve traffic operations. A PSR for Phase II is currently being prepared.
Cost Estimate $40 million for a three-mile segment
Status A PSR, Survey, Preliminary Design and Mitigated Negative Declaration
for Phase I have been completed. The next phase of right of way
acquisition and utility relocation will start in January 2003. Design is
approaching 70% completion. (The construction cost estimate for this
mile is $16.5 million.)
Funding Funding for -the project was included in the Traffic Congestion Relief
Program, 2002 STIP, and local funds, which,includes government tax and
developer fees. 'However, there is a shortfall for this project due to
relocation of underground high-pressure gas lines, overhead power
transmission lines, and telephone lines that conflict with the proposed
roadway alignment.
Schedule Construction will start April 2004
Project Need This project is. needed as a safety improvement. It is intended to match
recent two lane improvements completed in Contra Costa County. ,It
would eliminate. sharp curves, narrow lanes and add shoulders. Although
the projected 2010 "volumes exceed capacity of the existing and planned
two-lane roadway, this project -is not intended to address the potential
capacity deficiency. Additionally, this project will allow a bus route
between the City of Brentwood and the Lawrence Livennore National
Laboratory.
15 1/31/2003
i
i
G:°
,�_Parma Construct Vasco Rd.
Improvements
r
0 Livermore City Limit
M RAYMOND RD.
rn Ln
DALTON N
HARTFORD AVE. AVE' p
v
M
M
Awiftr c
r
M
a M
Cl) v
• O
v
F
North
Not to Scale
LEGEND
® Project Location
T\ f'C Expenditure Plan Figure
Vasco. Road Safety Improvements 10
89-202-2/02-CK
Project No. 11.
--a
Express Bus Service
Involved Agencies Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
Description Capital costs to cover express routes. Service will be provided to the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station from the BART owned Greenville Road
property. Service to run on weekdays during AM and PM peak hours with
headways consistent with BART train headways and timed to meet all
trains during the scheduled service hours. Project implementation is
contingent upon construction of I-580 HOV lanes (see Project No. 5).
Cost Estimate $2.5 million, for capital costs only
Status LAVTA has proposed this as an alternative (both short and long term) to
the I-580 Corridor study group charged with examining future BART-to-
Livermore options. This option will assist in the development of
mitigation efforts for the I-580 corridor traffic congestion issues.
Funding The Alameda County CMA has identified $5.0 million of Tier 1 funds for
this project in the Alameda Countywide Transportation Plan. This project
may be eligible for the Regional Gas Tax, and may be included in the new
Alameda County Measure B sales tax program. In addition to other existing
transit funding sources, private sector funding from either the business or
residential development community could be cultivated to match specific
express route costs. A total of $4 million of TVTDF funds has been
designated to be shared with Project 4, the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station:
Schedule To be determined. Because this project requires no PSR or preliminary
engineering work, the amount of time from concept to implementation is
relatively short.
Project Need Express Bus Service will provide the Tri-Valley with a flexible alternative to
heavy rail or auto facilities. Flexibility is a benefit, allowing for changes in
the access of successful employment centers. As development in and
beyond the Tri-Valley continues, congestion and commute times will grow
and frustrated commuters will continue to seek out alternate ways to get to
work. Express bus routes can transport riders directly to job sites and they
can link people to existing and highly successful fixed transit lines such as
BART and the Altamont Commuter Express.
16 1/31/2003
III. PROJECT PRIORITIES
In 1999, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council established nine priorities as part of the First
Amendment to the Strategic Expenditure Plan. Priority 1 was to fund the local share of the I-
580/I-680 Flyover and Hook Ramps Project. Approximately $5.6 million in TVTDF funds was
provided as the local match for this regional improvement. This project is now complete and the
TVTDF obligation for the funding of the project has been fulfilled.
The TVTC has also provided $1,164,000 in TVTDF funds for the preparation of the Project
Study Report (PSR) for the State Route 84 Corridor Improvements project between I-580 and 1-
680 (Project 2A). This PSR should be completed and approved by Caltrans in Spring 2003.
Caltrans has prepared the PSR for the 1-580 HOV Lanes project from Tassaj ara Road to Vasco
Road (Project -5) using State Traffic Congestion Relief Programs funds. Caltrans has also
prepared the PSR and the Project Report (PR) for the I-680 Auxiliary Lanes project between
Bollinger Canyon Road and Diablo Road (Project 3).
TVTDF funding is limited, and it is important to direct the funds to the highest priority projects.
A balance of $9,539,901 is currently available in the TVTDF Trust account to spend on the
TVTDF projects. Criteria identified in the JEPA to guide priorities are Project Readiness, which
is the ability to move directly to final design and construction; Project Fl�ndingr, which is the
ability to leverage outside funding for the project; and Project Effectiveness, which is the ability
of the project to address congestion and/or safety concerns. Based on these criteria, the priorities
established by the-Tri-Valley Transportation Council for this Second Amendment to the Strategic
Expenditure Plan are as follows.
A. INITIAL PRIORITIES
Priority 1. Fund $0.8 million of the "Phase 1" I-580/Foothill Road/San Ramon Road
Interchange Modifications project (Project 7) in 2002/03. Caltrans has approved the Project Study
Report, and the Project Report/Environmental Document was approved in April 2002. Project
design is nearly completed for the proposed improvements on the Dublin side of the freeway only.
This portion of the project is referred to as Phase 1, and Phase 2 will consist of all of the proposed
improvements on the Pleasanton side of the freeway. Pleasanton has elected not to implement
Phase 2 at this time. The total cost estimate for the Phase 1 project is $2.0 million. It will be
funded with approximately $1.2 million in Dublin's 20% set-aside TVTDF funds and the $0.8
million in TVTDF funds. Project construction is expected to start in Summer 2002.
The Dublin side of the freeway currently experiences safety issues related to traffic weaving from
the diagonal westbound off-ramp to make a left turn at the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard
intersection. This traffic weaving condition is critical due to the close proximity of Dublin
Boulevard to the 1-580 interchange. The project would create a signalized off-ramp intersection,
which would eliminate this weaving problem. This project meets the criteria of readiness to move
directly to final design and construction, funding leverage, and effectiveness in addressing safety
concerns.
17 1/31/2003
Priority 2. Fund $1.6 million of the I-680/Alcosta Boulevard project (Project 8) in 2002/03.
This project is located between the I-580/I-680 Flyover project and-the I-680 Auxiliary Lane
project. The project has a cost estimate of$9.6 million and It will be funded with $2.66 million
in SCC JEPA funds, $3.5 million in 1998 STIP funds, $4.34 million in local funds, and the $1.6
million in TVTDF funds. The PSR is complete, and project design is expected to be completed
by Spring 2003, with construction to begin in Fall 2003. This project meets the readiness and
funding leverage criteria, and it is ready to proceed.
B. PRIORITIES TO BE RECONSIDERED IN THE FUTURE
Priorities to be reconsidered in the future by the TVTC for fiscal years after 2002/03 are listed
below.
Priority 3. Fund $4 million for public transit projects, which include the West
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station project (Project 4) and/or the Express Bus project (Project 11)
in 2003/04.
a.) The West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (Project 4) benefits both the 1-580 and I-
680 corridors. Funding sources for this project include lease revenues, tax
increments, station revenues and grant sources. The Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency has a $10 million commitment to the project (as indicated in the
RTP). Though the project is included in the Measure B program, its placement in
Tier 2 makes it unlikely to receive actual revenues without a dramatic increase in
sales tax receipts over the next twenty years. Any TVTDF funds allocated to the
project should be on the same timetable as other funding for the project.
b.) Use a portion of the $4 million for purchasing buses to be used for express service
provided that all of the operating costs are fully funded from other sources.
Priority 4. Start accumulating funds in 2003/04 for the initial phase of the Route 84 Expressway
project (Project 2A). No TVTDF funds are allocated to the Isabel Route 84/1-580 Interchange
proj-ect (Project 2B). '
Priority 5. Start accumulating funds in 2004/05 for the design and construction of the I-680
Auxiliary Lane project in Contra Costa County(Project 3).
Priority 6. Start accumulating funds in 2006/07 for construction of the 1-580 HOV project
(Project 5).
Priority 7. Fund the "Phase 2"I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road interchange project (Project 7).
Priority 8. No TVTDF funds are allocated to the I-680 HOV Lanes from SR 84 to Top of Sunol
Grade project (Project 6). The Crow Canyon Road project (Project 9) and the Vasco Road
2 $13.5 million including improvements to the northbound on and off ramps
18 1/31/2003
proj ect (Proj ect 10) are lower priority proj ects that are not recommended for TVTDF funding for
the next ten years of the program.
IV. PROJECT FUNDING
Under the previous SEP, dated January 1999, the TVTDF was projected to raise approximately
$70 million through year 2013. Eighty percent of this TVTDF revenue (approximately $56.8
million) was allocated by the TVTC, while 20% of the fee revenue ($13.25 million) may be
designated by member agencies for one or more of the projects listed in the JEPA. Each agency
may designate up to 20% of the funds it collects for the specific project.
TVTDF revenue projections under the current SEP 2002 Update include an adjustment to the
TVTD Fee amounts for "MF Residential", "Office" and "Industrial" uses to match the percent
level of the Nexus Fee for"SF Residential", effective 2002/03. Based on this fee adjustment, the
TVTDF is projected to raise approximately $93.9 million through year 2013, including $75.1
million in 80% TVTDF revenue.
The TVTC has committed $56.9 million out of the projected $75.1 million in 80% TVTDF
revenue to fund the following projects, which are deemed the highest priority for funding in the
next ten years. The TVTC commitments include the initial TVTDF project allocations from the
previous SEP (totaling $56.8 million) plus an additional $0.1 million for updating the 1996 fee
nexus study, as shown in Table 1. The non-committed portion of the 80% TVTDF revenue (see
• projected cash flow in Table 1) can be used for expansion of funding for the next, more extensive
SEP update to fulfill unmet project _funding needs and possibly fund new TVTDF projects, as
deemed appropriate by the TVTC.
Project 1. I-580/1-680 Interchange: $5.6 M in total local share provided
Project 2A. Route 84 Expressway,I-580 to I-680: $24.0 M
Project 3. I-680 Auxiliary Lanes in Contra Costa County: $12.0 M
Project 4. West DPX BART Station: $4.0 M
Project 5.. I-580 IHOV Lanes: $8.0 M
Project 7. I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange: $1.6 M ($0.8 M for Phase 1)
Project 8. I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange: $1.6 M
Project 11. Express Bus: a portion of the $4.0 M for Project 4
The funding and scheduling targets for these projects have been compiled in Table 1. The other
eligible TVTDF projects either will be funded by other funding sources or have a lower priority
for TVTDF funding at this time and may be funded beyond the ten-year timeframe.
The Contra Costa agencies designate their 20%portion of TVTDF revenue collected to the I-680
Auxiliary Lane project. The four Alameda County agencies will direct their 20% funds to other
projects. Since the adoption of the TVTDF program in 1998, the total 20% funding collected by
the Alameda County jurisdictions is approximately as follows:
19 1/31/2003
• Pleasanton: $1.0 million (project use to be determined)
• Livermore: $1.3 million (to be used on the SR 84 project)
• Dublin: $1.2 million (to be used on the I-580/San Ramon Interchange project)
• Alameda County $0.03 million (project use to be determined)
Other potential funding sources for the TVTDF projects are described below.
A. New Measure B — The new Measure B program includes major funding for TVTC projects
in Alameda County including the West Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station (Project 4) in Tier 2
funds, Express Bus Service (Project 11), State Route 84 Corridor Improvements (Project 2A),
and Isabel Route 84/I-580 Interchange (Project 2B).
B. TEA-21 - Funding is available for a variety of transportation projects in the new federal
transportation legislation.
C. STIP -This is a State funding program that is available on a competitive basis for a variety of
transportation projects.
D. Local Funds - This source includes local Traffic Impact Fee programs, developer
contributions, and other local funds.
E. Measure C - This funding source includes only those projects designated for funding in the
half-cent sales tax program in Contra Costa County
F. SCC JEPA - This is a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement in Southern Contra Costa County
that provides funding from new development for transportation projects in southern Contra Costa
County.
Funding sources for TVTDF projects is shown in Table 2.
20 1/31/2003
V. PROJECT SPONSORS
Project sponsors have been designated for each of the eleven TVTDF projects. The Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement pertaining to TVTD Fees for Traffic Mitigation defines
"Project Sponsor" as "the Party designated in the Strategic Expenditure Plan(SEP) to oversee the
use of Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee revenues in the development of a specific
regional Transportation Improvement Project. The Party designated as Project Sponsor may be,
but need not be, the lead agency for environmental clearance or the agency responsible for the
design or construction of the project itself." Project sponsors are listed below.
Project 1. I-580/I-680 Local Share (Complete) ACTA
Project 2A. Route 84 Expressway,I-580 to I-680 Livermore
Project 2B. Isabel Route 84/1-580 Interchange Livermore
Project 3. I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Danville
Project 4. West Dublin/Pleasanton(DPX) BART Station Dublin
Project 5. I-580 HOV Lanes Pleasanton
Project 6. I-680 HOV Lanes, SR 84 to Top of Sunol Grade Pleasanton
Project 7. I-580/Foothill/San Ramon Road Interchange Dublin
Project 8. I-680/Alcosta Boulevard Interchange San Ramon
Project 9. Crow Canyon Road Improvements Alameda County
Project 10. Vasco Road Safety Improvements Alameda County
Project 11. Express Bus LAVTA
G:ITVTCISEP Update ISEP proposal for adoption-5—with adjusted fee.doc
21 1/31/2003
J o 0 o co 0 co 0 o T- C>
0 0 o 6 a'
T Q 69 N 609, 609. 609, (2q E). 6q 6ct 609- LO
O 6F�
�... o
O
r
N O co
N O r
O M
r Eft
4
- N
r
O
{1}
. a
N d' O
In 6C0F} � � �
�o -
.
O LO -
:
o u o
00 CD N d•
p � 6� E-/� bg eN-- �
� bg 6g
Q LO -.
cfl -
o
0.. W: ti N O
r` to
) r CD Ul) -
o � o
W —
u1
ti N N
_. ::.. ._.. :._ ..: ;. tet•:: M•.
tt3 N
69� .
•
•
.: o
}� l.L ti N o LO ti c
� v::d• o cv tom; o �
0 o � 6� o �
F— �� M bg � �
.O o
co. .. cfl : � coco
0
o -
co �
0 0 � � 0
N o
o �
T7
. :::......... .. 60f? Cf}- O T
- U
O � N r- M � o •o �' � U
04 E C) td
E CL
_
o �
M: �� •c � c cns
_ :....
CO
_ J .. o fl. tD c �
,� 000 0�0 0 "a >, V �' O J O •+ L
co CD c O r � •L Cl) _ O
o ; c� J U O �° � as H- c w Q n
4- m � �. c c u� m ,n om .� cn V Q cn L m O
C3 ++ v
� 0 O �,� V �' V} � � tL� � N � O � O -a �• V1 � W � p � p V
00 Rf O s.. -R3 p Q -� J .0 O y �? D3 tQ N x � O N
� •— U m � � � � p � � � O � m Q v N .E 'v
-= � ca X O O o o o a� CL a) cn Z o o as o CD c
W �-- � ct- L �- O C Q � L � L O V �O � O cu � p C
00 0.ao 00 0 0 0 0 o a� o a) � � � � � �
U) Q � -O +r
Z W 00 � x DC � oo U y o0 00 � � � � o � cv � x a� � a� � ° �
> O — — — — — LL. (1) c Q
W . cv c.
O � r N � � �
N M L(i C6 ti 00 di T- •.
kn
06 CD
641) Gol� tol� tomi to9l bol� b0c)
....................... . ........
..........t .. ........7m,.......... 7... ........ ........... ........ ......................... . . ..... .........,so elf)
eocl tos eomi
fps
........... ..........
............ t................... .... ........... .. ........ . ...................... ...................................... ..................... .. ...06 0
.................................................... ��*.............:- .......... ................ ...........tt ...............................
.................... .................. .. ............................................... ............................... C06 Gol:� 609� be 60S Gol� CL
........... ........... ... ..................... .........................&O (U 00 cz kn rn W) W) 00 eol� fps Goc.� fis. 605. 60S 6s Gol� 609. Goc.� 6s 11%0 0.................................... .... ..... oo... ........ ............. 7-4 co
............ .................. ......t ....... ........ ...........------ . .... c..................... .... ...... ... .................. .. ........ C). .......... .......... ........... ...................... ............ rn .w
kn
........ Goq.............. O
cz
C*
V) W
......................... 0 0
.......... >Cd L Cd
Qj..... .......... ........I00 U" rn IIoo........... 46S 609
00' 00............�.7 ....................
97W-
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
Public Works Department
100 Civic Plaza -
Dublin, CA 94568
MEMORANDUM
Donna Gerber
Supervisor To: Tri-Valle Transportation Council
Contra Costa County y p
(W)(925) 820-8683
From: TVTC Technical Advisory Committee
Date: February 5, 2003
Scott Haggerty
Supervisor Subject: Staff Report on the Adjustment of the TVTD Fee and the Adoption of
Alameda County
(W)(510)272-6691 the SEP 2003 Update
The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) has previously considered a number of
Millie Greenberg options to adjust the Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee on an interim
Councilmember basis while the 1996 fee nexus study undergoes an update review in the near future. This
Danville
(925) 837-3231 report summarizes Staff recommendations culminating.from all of the discussions s and
input provided to Staff during TVTC meetings held in 2002.
As requested by the TVTC, Staff has re-examined TVTDF projects with funding
Claudia McCormick
Councilmember,Chair
shortfalls and up project dated cost information as shown in Table 1. Most of the project
Dublin funding is generated by sources other than the TVTD Fee program, including $385.2
(W)(925)833-6650 million in non-TVTDF funds, or 50% of the total project cost estimate of$763 million.
(H)(925)828-1672 The current TVTC project allocations only cover approximately 6.7% of the total project
cost, leaving$326.5 in unfunded cost.
Steve BrozoskY Staff is proposing that the TVTC consider the following two scenarios concerning the
Councilmember TVTD Fee adjustment and the SEP 2003 Update.
Pleasanton
(925) 846-8727
SCENARIO A: Approve.Proposed Interim Fee Adiustment, and Approve the
Proposed SEP 2003 Update With Interim Fee Adjustment
Tom Reitter
Councilmember Under this scenario, Staff recommends that the TVTC approve a TVTD Fee adjustment
Livermore that would reduce the Fee for "MF Residential" and raise the Fee for "Office" and
(W)(925)422-1468 "Industrial" to 27.7% of their corresponding Nexus Fee to match the percent level of the
(H)(925)443-3326 Nexus Fee for "SF Residential", after adjustment for the construction cost index (CCI).
This Fee adjustment would leave the TVTD Fee for "Retail" and "Other" categories
unchanged (see Table 2). The proposed Fee structure would provide for a more equitable
Dave Hudson Fee distribution among the various land use categories without increasing the cost of
Councilmember housing.
San Ramon
(925) 828-1822 Depending on the state of the economy, the proposed Fee adjustment could generate up
to $23 million in additional revenue over the next 10 years, including $18.4 million in
80% TVTDF funds. This additional revenue would eliminate the negative cash flow
dilemma anticipated in future years of the TVTD Fee program under the current Fee
amounts. The proposed Fee adjustment could extend the TVTDF funding potentials
from approximately 6.7%to 9.1% of the total project cost.
The proposed Fee schedule would represent an interim Fee adjustment prior to completion of the fee nexus study
update. This Fee adjustment should be viewed as a first-step Fee increase designed to capture potential TVTDF
revenues from development that occurs while the current fee nexus study is being updated.
Staff recommends that the additional revenues collected from the proposed Fee adjustment be left unallocated
among the existing 10 projects-until the fee nexus study update is completed. The new nexus study will provide
the basis for maintaining or updating the current list of improvement projects, adopting a revised Fee schedule, and
allocating the funds for projects.
The JEPA agreement for TVTD Fees requires that the amounts of non-automatic Fee adjustments be included in a
written addendum to the JEPA agreement that shall be approved by each member jurisdiction. If the TVTC
approves the proposed interim Fee adjustment, Staff recommends that the TVTC also approve the attached
Addendum I to the JEPA in connection with this Fee adjustment.
In addition, if the TVTC approves the proposed interim Fee adjustment, Staff recommends that the TVTC also
approve the attached SEP proposal entitled SEP 2003 Update With Interim Fee Adjustment "Proposal - or
Adoption" to update the current SEP. This SEP Update includes an expenditure plan that incorporates additional
revenues anticipated from the proposed Fee adjustment. The plan assumes no changes to the current list of
TVTDFprojects and no changes to the current TVTC funding allocations, with the exception that the new plan
allocates an additional $100,000 to fund the fee nexus study update within the next two years. The plan also
updates the scheduling targets for the individual projects, as well as other information such as project status,, cost
estimates, and funding sources.
Recommended Actions:
1. Approve Proposal To Adopt an Interim TVTD Fee Adjustment
2. Approve Proposal To Adopt Addendum I to the JEPA Agreement for TVTD Fees
3. Approve Proposal To Adopt the SEP 2003 Update With Interim Fee Adjustment
SCENARIO B: Keep Current Fee Schedule Unchanimd, and Approve the
Proposed SEP 2003 Update With Status Quo Fee Schedule
Under this scenario, Staff recommends that the TVTC leave the current TVTD Fee amounts unchanged and
approve the attached SEP proposal entitled SEP 2003 Update With Status Quo Fee Schedule-, "Proposal for
Adoption"to update the current SEP. The JEPA agreement specifies that the SEP must be reviewed at least once
every two years by the TVTC. The current SEP, which was adopted in January 1999, is overdue for an update to
reflect the completion status of the list of TVTDF projects and'any changes to the project schedules, cost estimates
and funding.
The proposed SEP Update in this scenario is a "Status Quo" update in that it maintains the same fundamental
assumptions used in the current SEP, including no changes to the list of eligible projects, current TVTC funding
allocations, or the existing Fee schedule. This SEP Update includes one additional allocation in the amount of
$100,000 to fund the fee nexus study update within the next two years. The new SEP also updates the scheduling
targets for the individual projects, as well as other information such as project status, cost estimates, and funding
sources.
If the TVTC elects not to adopt the proposed interim Fee adjustment described in Scenario A, the TVTC should
move to approve the proposed "Status Quo" SEP Update to prevent any unnecessary delays to projects that are
2
ready to go to construction in 2003.
Recommended Action:
Approve Proposal To Adopt the SEP 2003 Update With Status Quo Fee Schedule
Staff requests that the TVTC review the attached interim Fee adjustment and SEP Update proposals before the
March 5, 2003, meeting. According to the JEPA, non-automatic Fee adjustments and SEP revisions shall require
unanimous approval by the TVTC. Therefore, the TVTC vote must be unanimous to approve any of the action
items listed in this Staff Report and forward the action plan to the individual member jurisdictions for comment
and ratification. The TAC respectfully requests that all TVTC members be present at the March 5th TVTC meeting
to discuss and comment on the proposed.interim Fee adjustment and SEP Update.
Attachments
cc: TVTC TAC
G:I TVTCISEP UpdatelSEP 2003 update-Mar staff report updated doc
3
9z
06
C)
ON
r-y V--4 r_y
X..
GO h% GOT bons
ME
MI 2A
........
WQ W
two Moo
U�
j"awo.s.-
3"x
r
'.iti
V" 45:."
—.4.0
YU 's;t
J
-moo
z7g; 5'
�it`V�'
4; n7
XZZ N-
t
S
mom
`2
7,.-Y WIN
vx �P
to ..
ti.
.2,
r
-1z 5�
W o�
N C)
... ......................
a
...... ..
?
2A
a Whymyn
�0'
tt z:.,4
5t
.................
RA4A L-
R
15
IN .......
4
gi
_c LIU
..............
Sri
=W. MIX
g�.; S.
z"M Roo A
;N:1
tn
pro
06
0
.........
=Zoo
........
.........
'EMIT
?505750
1"Uly Alto V? z..... . .....
....... ..........
]:�p
_7,
...... .....
vow
...............................
7.
A-.!t'
........
AV
-t-7, .........................................
0
............
............
Rococo A I.,:
any
.........
U
.......... Wom
0
. ...............
..............
_7.zWMV-_
...........
0
...........
om
.it�.
0
(U
4-o
Xz
F-y
..........
Ws klzl'�'
:A..-W, C) C) ga,
C>
C) C) 00
CIJ
501-to 311
R
CS
0 0
It mi IWO .........
-Rr.-
C>
CtS
low
41 co
>
Cts "o
4.0
0-y 0
M--
C> Do 4-
C) C) C> WI) C> C>
C*
c) p
C11.4 CN V_y1 .4 -'T 06 c; r- c>
60S 601- 6411 6001 60!� toe) 601� 6411� no 05 W
0 Cd
.... . .....
4.4
601)
.............
"A"t 0
..... .........
z
V
.........
.... .......
my
00 t' 0
cts
. .... 46q
K
...........
3.
0
z as
Cd
4
*�*---, ": ... _ - �.�
C)
CD
tz
0 x
jZ;
0
-75'Z . ...........
..............
..........
. .......... ..
X..",man"a 07 Rom
Y 0
..........
6,4
-0�
tic
o
WT KM WEST 11 ...... _150
..............
'to. cis 4_4 W
0 4y 60S
lot
nag Cd
MOO
C13
Z. 0 0
2'Y.5"
t:
> Lz�
uw�
n
�1200 into 5 '- t� , .. , ..
2025 to
A
'1777
t.�0., CIS
.. ... ..
0 0 W V) (4
..............
but
wpm om 0
2�'
00
NQ
WAK
4:
$:
.1'0+�-."-'.q4*.........:..: A Gun LU Z�
... . .........
........
2 Ln
too 1.
low
jowl diploid A neens ank
7,
TABLE 2
PROPOSED INTERIM ADJUSTMENT
TO THE TVTD FEE
(Adjust the Fee Amounts for MF Residential, Office and Industrial Uses to Match
the Percent Level of the Nexus Fee for SF Residential; No New Allocations of
TVTDF Funds)
....
....n..Y_.>.....J.,w., v....., ..>..... ...... n, .n,n .. ...r xs...M v............. - P:lYii:^:�?„..�`,:♦,�2.:?:�:_t.::._!v.
o �:=
xx.
_ ..........a...... .,_............w....Jr. r._......n..n.„ ...,„ .. .. .. ... ::r.'S.'>::i:�o;:-% .)�J,.%'%[::•:!:•::::�::;:-
..... .. .... .. .. .. .... ,....-r-......:...:........:.::::3 ,.Viii'_
..in.
.. .. .......... .. .... v ..,....._ .: ,.r_ ...Y.
..>.........
a.r ..,..
Ne�- :F
n o o ed.
.t..._....__..:.... .
v ... ..-, .. Y.
.. .. .,._.m.....St.r,... .. �•,::nw......... ........:::?.♦.n.:-<w,r.:.-.n.r;.<..:.,... �,...;.`.'::._:.,...;+:i .::t.^ :Yx"�.
r ... .,. . ._ .. .♦ ...._ ..„_.....x..... , .....w., ..:...,w...:.....v..._. e:'Y.•,cn:]'ril�i:+�v.�:t
...._:Z..s...... .. }. +...,xr .. ...........w:::.. ..v.n..>......._......_....... ..c-_......_ ':3:': - :Y...J:-�Ji•}M=)r^:�iiil4..f....w
...3.....aY_......ww,r. ,. .. .. v ... a �:
-,i..,.... .n.....:....:..... « _... �r.....s,..<_...,n tn... .) 'fl ::T::a.'• ;,.f\::��:_
.. ... ..,,sT r .S : ., ,^'Y: ... ....,...w9i...r. „.. .,... ...« .. .d..,...).,. ..r). .r-... :•h':.)r.Y.. +.c
_ .. ..... .,:, :S .... .:. ........ ,... _. ..t�... .. .. ....uta <R:.�t:
_.$.._,. : ..,: x t r
.. . r � .� -
,
,
, .r. S... 4 r., i,. .. _..n..r• ,•,., .-1.�
r ,
, ..rl^•._w.....:,'r,.......is-':-:zv.: .:.!v.. '} �.. ..v{•
_ ., .. .. ....... .... , 1 t✓n._,....aaa......�..+...v...,a-_..._...:.,-t;t... - .L,.:n.yo.-::c'.::i�.,k
trt art r : .) l ••✓S, ri.;
v ,-.t . { .. ......... v.,ar .. :3...Jr.J, r......... .. .._.... .. H:.....: _ :ntl.rM.:..:•<.:v^,:
.;.:..tom
it.. :.n _. < . .S ....... .... ..Y..r.:i ..... .......... .7A .int
... ... , a_ ... ...._...__ Yt,<a.t.,. ... _ ._........1.. .: t...s... Sr• _,Y... _ xiy:'t::i:.,�-',.{:,`.•,•.i:
SF Residential $1,711/unit 27.7% $1,711/unit 27.7%
0.0%
. ...... ' ..
Resi entlal f 1 _1 98/
unit 30:5/0 1 b87
n
u �t 27.7%
-93%
Office $1.14/sf 10.3% $3.07/sf 27.7%
+169.3%
psS 0.3o03/etail. 1,141s 8 4/ f 8
•
;
0.0
Industrial $0.86/sf 11.5% $2.08/sf 27.7%
+141.9%
er, 685 .
pe, tri 3 .0:/0 :$6.8 eak ars 34.0%
p
* Based on the average Retail Fee from the Nexus Study.
** Includes an average adjustment factor of 24%to the initial Nexus Fee for"Other"uses that do not fit
into the standard Retail,Office or Industrial categories. This adjustment factor was determined based
on a TVTC review of TVTD Fees in 1999 to make the Fee for"Other"uses more equitable(i.e.,
proportional to the Fee paid by traditional Retail, Office or Industrial-uses).
G:ITVTCISEP UpdateTee adjustment proposal MarOl doc
2/3/2003
F,00x k�6 -,,-4m,
The Board of Supervisors John Sweetenon ra
Clerk of the Board
Count Administration Building and
Y 9 Costa County Administrator
651 Pine Street, Room 106
(925)335-1900
Martinez, California 94553-1293
County
John Gioia, 1st District
Gayle B.Uilkema,2nd District
Donna Gerber,3rd District
Mark DeSaulnier,4th District
Federal D.Glover,5th District of
COU1Z�
January 28, 2003
Honorable Claudia McCormick, Chair
Tri Valley Transportation Council
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Chair McCormick,
On behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors I am requesting that the Tri Valley
Transportation Council (TVTC) recommend to their member jurisdictions that they raise the fee
schedule in steps, as shown in the attached table.
This proposed fee schedule represents 50%of the fee amounts justified by the Fee Program's nexus
analysis. In addition,I would also request that the TVTC consider further adjustments to these fees
after completion of the proposed new fee study. This proposal has new development paying a fee
amount that more closely represents its fair share as determined by the TVTDF Program's nexus
analysis.
If you have any questions on this matter please feel free to contact Supervisor Gerber or myself on
this matter.
Sincerely,
Mark DeSaulnier, Chair
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
MD/JC:mlk
Enclosure
cc: Members,Board of Supervisors
G:\Transportation\Steve\bo\sent\TVTDF Letter.doc
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: Donna Gerber,Supervisor •' Costa
District III
C
DATE: January 28,2003 ,3
SUBJECT: Tri Valley Transportation Development Fee
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. AUTHORIZE the chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter to the chair of the Tri Valley
Transportation Council (TVTC) requesting that the TVTC recommend to their member
jurisdictions that they raise the fee schedule for the Tri Valley Transportation Development
Fee(TVTDF)Program in steps,as shown in Exhibit.A,to a level that represents 50%of the
fee amounts justified by the Fee Program's nexus analysis,and consider further adjustments
to these fees after completion of the proposed new fee study;and
2. APPOINT the Board of Supervisors Alternate representative to the TVTC and direct the
County Administrator to update Attachment 1 of the Board list of committee assignments.
FISCAL IMPACT
None to the General Fund. The new fee study would be funded by TVTDF.Program revenue.
BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Tri Valley Transportation Council(TVTC)includes Contra Costa and Alameda counties,and
the cities of Danville,San Ramon,Dublin,Pleasanton and Livermore. The TVTC was formed to
address transportation issues of common interest. In 1997,the TVTC unanimously adopted a
recommendation to its member jurisdictions to adopt a uniform development fee,known as the Tri
Valley Transportation Development Fee(TVTDF).
Program,that would be collected on new construction in the Tri Valley area to be used to help fund
11 specific transportation projects. In 1998,all the jurisdictions individually adopted fee ordinances
and jointly formed a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement(JEPA)to administer use of the regional
fee revenue. The JEPA requires the NTC to prepare and unanimously adopt a Strategic
Expenditure Plan,which among other things,establishes priorities forthe allocation of fee revenue
to eligible projects and recommends adjustments in the TVTDF Program. In.1999, the TVTC
adopted their first Strategic Expenditure Plan.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDAT OF CO DMINIST TOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S): SOR GERBER
ACTION OF BOARD ON:I!m
ry 28�,3 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED g�OTHER X
AUTHORIZED the Chair,Board of Supervisors,to sign a letter to the Chair of the Tri Valley
Transportation Council(TVTC)requesting that the TVTC recommend to their member jurisdictions that
they raise the fee schedule fir the Tri Valley Transportation Development Fee Program in specifced steps,to
a level that represents 5011*of the fee amounts justified by the Fee Program's nexus analysis,and consider
further adjustments to these fees after completion of the proposed new fee study;RECOMMENDED that
the Chair,Board of Supervisors and the District III Supervisor discuss the appointment of an alternate
member of the Board of Supervisors to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT Nope 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: Stever!Goetz(9251335-1240)
cc: Community Development Department(CDD) ATTESTED Jam 28: ml
PWD JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF
TVTC Chair, (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY ,
DEPUTY
G.\TmnsportaUon\Stevelbotsentltvtdf.l.doc '
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee
January 28,2003
Page 3
BACKGROUND/.REASONS FOR RECOMMENQ IONS {continued}
I believe this proposal to be superior to the previous proposals. Compared to the previous
proposals, this proposal has new development paying a fee amount that more closely represents
its fair share as determined by the TVTDF Program's nexus analysis. The stepped increases
follow a model used by the East County Regional Fee when it was initially established. Those fees
had automatic annual increases over three years (in addition to adjustments for inflation)to reach
the Level ultimately viewed as fair at.the time by all parties. The table below provides an additional
comparison of my proposed TVTDF fee schedule with the other regional fees assessed in the
County. I would like the Board's support for this concept prior to submitting it to the TVTC.
Comparison of TVTDF Fee Proposal with Other Regional Fees in Unincorporated Areas
New East CC South West CC
TVTDF Traffic Imp. County Regional
Land Use Proposal Authority JEPA Fee
Single Family (per d.u.) 31088 71902 894 768
Multiple Family (per d.u.) 19964 41847 894 614
Office (per sq.ft.) 5.53 1.05 1.43 0.23
Retail (per sq.ft.) 1.14 1-.05 0.89 0.23
Warehouse (per sq.ft.) 3.74 1.05 0 0.23
Other (per pk. hr. trip) 1,007 .79902 894 768
I am also'recommending that the Board of Supervisors appoint an alternate to the TVTC. An
alternate will help ensure that the County will be represented at TVTC meetings when unanimous
decisions on matters related to the Strategic Expenditure Plan are required.
Exhibit A: Comparison of Various Fee Schedules for the TVTDF.
f
4 O O 0 0 0 0 0
0 X 0 0 0 00 0
tII 0 LO LO LO 00 to 0
C Z
LL o
N Lf) M M t!)
�. "ct' 0) U') r 1` M
H {'' O 00 M L6 e- Mr,:
i cc O N O CO C)
V M r �-
c
Q.0 N ti � r MCD
�• Q N CO CO 00
•� N r-
V) t0 LO O) d• M tC)
6- r_ M o0 e.•. t0 q.
o M
4- pooOiMr- N �
Ri m N v- M t`
N n-
o
CL 0OI,-- It00O
o M000r- oo
CL a0 �-' f` M r N M
V QNtio co00
c0 o 0 0 0 0 0 •
p o =3 00 00 CO O 00 tet• c
X N N N OO N Cr) •0
Ll. � Z ca
LL
Q N _ 0 0 1` �1• 00 0 .L
p m 0 o
N 0 0000 M �- N L6-000 13
p ti 0 CO m
= O
� �- D o 0 0 0 0 �
o
X O Ll? O C'� �- r
LL c to LC) r- O N CO
Jzi .�
Q DO O tt) M to O
� a N - OOOMtnO cc
_ W Op 0 0 CO N r' e- cvi -C
C13 N Cl OO � N C
_ Cl) ` M N r n
t1J w a o
W c)
U. 4) o 0 0 0 0 m
CO 4) Q 00 r O O N 'IT .0
LL x N r M
M 00 T-
CO L
O cZ
C
> C.j o
Lt- E
O O O `t lilt (D O cc
Z o0 CO 4)
0 4)
4) roo � � Ctri
L 0 00 �-
LL- t` W 4)
N 00 r- C
r O 00 O m• �' 1�• m
0V) CO t` 'r.: e= I` CO
V X •� C-4 r
Z cc CO M N r
C C
L
m
•Q Q.
L.
�•� L- Q.
^. r� Q NJ
v-
L 4) � ca •tn
Q CL CL L 4)
:-
cu
v� �
4) cu
U- N CL
�,0 X
Q CL Q ._ N L d}
Q Q
Ju) 0 � � O
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) SID I
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
Complete this form,and place it in the box near the spqakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
AML
Name: LAWIlLdoolZ '�i�� ,$,% �� • � /'
Phone
Address: city Zip Code: V-5„0d•
w
I am speaking for myself or organization:
7XA A60S AO A4%w7V"7 0*4w)
(name of organization) 44*qw A**
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# '' 4b 02"w
Date:
My Comments will be general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not Wish to speak on the subject but leave these comments for the board to consider:
4e