HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing No 1 12-04-89 '~ ~.i~i~''~, ~,i !i~"'% /:'~
~ ~ ,'~ i= PUBLIC HEARING NO 1
~ ?::: :: ' ii:' ~:~ ?~' -4- '
£ Inter--Corn
OAT£: NOVEMBER 2 8 ~
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
INTERIM FEE INCREASE PURSUANT TO MAJOR THOROUGHFARE & BRIDGE FEE
PROGRAM FOR THE FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
RECOMMENDATION:
Pleasure of the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
The Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program ("Fee Program") was
originally initiated by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in 1982.
The Fee Program was subsequently revised and adopted by the County and
the Cities of Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Dana Point, Irvine, Mission Viejo,
Newport Beach, Orange, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana,
Tustin and Yorba Linda as an exhibit to the Joint Exercise of Powers
Agreements creating the Foothill/Eastern and San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor Agencies. .~
The intent of the Fee Program is to require all new development to bear
a reasonable portion of the costs of the Corridors by payment of
development fees. The Fee Program contemplates that funds from other
more traditional sources (e.g., existing state and federal taxes on
motor vehicle fuel) and/or from other non-traditional sources (e.g. toll
revenues) will pay for the portion of the cost of the Corridors not
funded by development fees.
The Fee Program estimated the cost of the Corridors, established areas
of benefit in which development fees would be required, and calculated
fee rates, for various types of land uses (e.g., single family, multi-
family, non-residential). The fee rates included in the Fee Program a~e
based on calculations of the percentage of corridor user trip ends that
originate or end within the Area of Benefit and which are attributable
to new growth. The Fee Program calculates that ~rip ends attributable
to new growth represent 48.48% of the trips withih' the Foothill/Eastern
Area of Benefit. Accordingly, the Fee' Program included fees on new
development in accordance with the estimated benefit to be derived from
the Corridors. A more detailed description of the methodology utilized
to develop the existing fee rates is included in the Fee Program which
is attached hereto.
In 1988 the TCA initiated a review of the estimated construction costs
for the three Corridors. The review was intended to update the cost
estimates included in the 1985 Fee Program to reflect the substantial
additional environmental, design and engineering studies conducted since
1985 and the selection of a preferred alignment for the Eastern
Transportation Corridor.
FEE INCREASE -MAJOR THOROUGHFARE & BRIDGE FEE
NOVEMBER 28, 1989
PAGE 2
In March 1989, the Corridor Design Management Group ("CDMG") submitted
cost estimates to the TCA for the two Corridors. The estimates shown in
1988 for the Foothill/Eastern Corridors is $1,500 million.
The CDMG cost estimates were also reviewed by Deleuw Cather & Company.
The Deleuw Cather & Company estimates ranged from 10% - 18% lower than
the CDMG estimate for the Foothill/Eastern Corridors.
The TCA recognizes that the cost estimates could be revised further as
additional design work is completed and because of (1) the TIOPAC align-
ment alternative for the Eastern Corridor, and (2) the phasing analysis
for the Foothill and Eastern Corridors. Accordingly, the TCA adopted a
conservative approach in setting the interim fees with the understanding
that these and other construction cost issues will be further reviewed
in 1990.
In June 1989, the Board of Directors of the TCA voted to retain the
methodology of the existing Fee Program including the existing Area of
Benefit boundaries, two fee zones within the Area of Benefit, and the
original developer share percentage of 48.48% for the Foothill/Eastern
Corridor.
In July 1989, the Board of Directors of the TCA recommended the adoption
of interim fee rate increases based on the methodology of the Fee
Program to reflect the increased estimated cost of the Corridors
discussed above. The recommended interim fee rates do not include any
financing costs for the two Corridors. The TCA is in the process of
developing more definitive finance plans for the Corridors. It is
anticipated that the finance plans will be adopted in 1990, and that the
TCA will seek a further revision to the Corridor fees at that time to
reflect an appropriate share of Corridor financing costs. The interim
fee rates also reflect a recognition by the TCA that there may be some
adjustment in the next several months regarding the construction cost
estimates for the Corridors in light of the TIOPAC alignment alternative
for the Eastern, and a phasing schedule for the Foothill/Eastern.
Accordingly, the Board of the TCA recommended the interim rates to
reflect the increased construction costs for the Corridors, but with the
understanding that the TCA will seek a permanent adjustment in the fee
rates in calendar year 1990 after the outstanding finance and
construction costs issues have been resolved.
DISCUSSION:
The First Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Power Agreement
creating the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency requires
the Board of Directors of the TCA to annually review the development
fees imposed by the parties to the Joint Power Agreement to finance the
FEE INCREASE - MAJOR THOROUGHFARE & BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM
NOVEMBER 28, 1989
PAGE 3
construction of the Corridors and authorizes the modification of the
Corridor fees with the approval of two-thirds of the Members of the
Agency.
Except for annual inflation adjustments, the level of the development
fees has not been revised since the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee
Program was adopted originally in 1985. At that time only conceptual
studies were available to form the basis for the original' program and
cost estimates were extremely preliminary. During the past 3-4 years,
detailed environmental, design and engineering studies have been
completed for the Corridors, and a preferred alignment has been selected
for the Eastern Transportation Corridor. In 1987 the toll method was
identified and adopted as the primary funding source for the remainder
of the financing package, necessitating further changes in the design
and engineering approach to the Corridors. These studies have now
provided more precise estimates of the construction cost of the
Corridors.
The recommended development fee rates are specifically proposed to be
interim rates. The recommended rates do not reflect any financing costs
associated with the' construction of the corridors (e.g. the cost of
money). The TCA is in the process of developing more definitive finance
plans for the Corridors. Accordingly, the Board of Directors of the TCA
decided to recommend the above interim rates pending the '.completion of
these additional analyses and the resolution of certain other
construction cost issues.
In order to implement the recommendation of the TCA, two-thirds of the
signatories, to .the Joint Powers Agreement are required to hold public
hearings and approve the proposed fee increase. AccOrdingly, the TCA is
requesting that the Board of Supervisors and the City Council of each
party to the Joint Powers Agreement approve resolutions revising the
Corridor fees specified in the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee
Program. ~
The existing development fee rates and the proposed interim fee rates
for the Foothill/Eastern Corridor are as follows:
Current
Rates
TCA Recommended
Interim Rates
Zone A
Single Dwelling Units (SDU)
Multi-Dwelling Units (MDU)
Non-Residential (per sq. ft.)
$1,417 $2,327
$ 827 $1,359
$ 1.97 $ 3.23
FEE INCREASE - MAJOR THOROUGHFARE & BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM
NOVEMBER °28, 1989
PAGE 4
Zone B
Single Dwelling Units (SDU)
Multi-Dwelling Units (MDU)
Non-Residential (per sq. ft.)
Current
Rates
TCA Recommended
Interim Rates
$1,007 $1,655
$ 586 $ 963
$ 1.15 $ 1.88
Development fees are imposed by each party to the Joint Powers
Agreements as a condition to the approval of new development. The
proposed fee increases do not apply to any existing developments.
A public hearing has been set for Monday, December 4, 1989 at 7:00 P.M.
in the City Council Chambers. Notices of this public hearing were
mailed to all property owners of record within the city limits per the
latest Assessor's Office records and published in the Orange County
Register by the Transportation Corridor Agency. Additionally, the City
staff has posted notices at all intersections of arterial highways
within the City (copy of this notice is attached for information).
Following is a suggested procedure for the public hearing:
1. Brief overview of the requested interim fee increase by
Mr. John Meyer, representative of the TCA.
2. Open public hearing.
3. Receive testimony either for or against the proposed fee increase.
4. Close public hearing.
5. Adoption of Resolution No. 89-185 if the City Council determines
that an interim increase in development fees of the Major
Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for the Foothill/Eastern
Transportation Corridor is in order.
The Transportation corridor Agency Board, staff and the Technical
Advisory Committee members request the Tustin City Council's approval of
the adoption of the interim rates as outlined above.
Bob Ledendecker
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
BL:mv
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 89-185
THE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA
ESTABLISHING THE AREAS OF BENEFIT AND APPROVING AN
INTERIM INCREASE IN DEVELOPMENT FEES OF THE M/%JOR
THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM FOR THE
FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously found, pursuant
to Resolution No. 85-103 that the implementation of the
Foothill/ Eastern Transportation Corridor will help to relieve
congestion on existing transportation systems within the City;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 948 of the City, the
City Council adopted its major thoroughfare and bridge fee
program (.the "Fee Program") providing for fees (the "Development
Fees") to be paid by building permit applicants in the City; and
WHEREAS, it is now necessary to adopt an interim
increase of the Development Fees in the amounts described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference;
and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the proposed
increase of the Development Fee was given pursuant to the
provisions of Ordinance No. 948 and Sections 66484.3 and 65962
of the Government Code of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the property owners of a majority of the area
of benefit described below did not file written protests to the
increase of the Development Fees; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66001 of the Government
Code of the State of California, it is necessary that the City
make certain findings in connection with the increase of the
Development Fees.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 17 The boundaries of the Area of Benefit shall
be those portions of the real property located in the City of
Tustin which are described in the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge
Fee Program for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor
(the "Fee Program") attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended
and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Creating the
Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, dated as of
October 21, 1988 (the "JPA"). The Fee Program and the JPA are
on file in the City Clerk's office and are incorporated herein
by reference.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Section 2. The estimated cost of these major
thoroughfares and bridges to be constructed pursuant to the Fee
Program and the JPA, excluding financing costs associated with
such construction, is in 1988 dollars as follows:
Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor
$1,500 Million
The Fee Program is designed to collect 48.48% of the costs of
construction of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor.
Section 3. The interim increase of the Development Fees
in accordance with the Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A, is
hereby approved and ordered. It is hereby acknowledged that
this interim increase will be reviewed by the City in calendar
year 1990 to determine, among other things, an appropriate share
of financing costs to be attributed to new development and to
confirm the adequacy of the Fee Program.
Section 4. The Development Fees for development within
the Area of Benefit are based on the trip ends generated by the
development as determined from the trip generation tables
included in the Fee Program, and shall be assessed upon new
development based upon the number of dwelling units included in
the development (for residential projects) or the gross square
footage of the development (for non-residential projects).
Section 5. The purpose of the increase of the Develop-
ment Fees is to reflect certain cost increases in connection
with the construction of bridges over waterways, railways,
freeways and canyons, and construction of major thoroughfares in
Orange County, as more fully described in the Fee Program and in
the reports of the Transportation Corridor Agencies.
Section 6. The Development Fees are to be used pursuant
to the provisions of the Fee Program, and the provisions of the
Fee Program are hereby ratified as if approved on the effective
date of this Resolution.
Section 7. The City Council hereby determines that
there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the
Development Fees and the typ~ of development projects on which
the Development Fees are imposed. This determination is based
on the findings and determinations contained in the Fee Program,
the reports of the staff and consultants to the Transportation
Corridor Agencies, including, but not limited to, those related
to user trip ends that originate, end or pass through the Area
of Benefit described therein and that are attributable to new
development.
Section 8. The City Council hereby determines that
there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
public facilities to be constructed with the proceeds of the
Development Fees and the type of development projects on which
the Development Fees are imposed. This determination is based
on the findings and determinations contained in the Fee Program
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and in the reports of the. staff and consultants to the
Transportation Corridor Agencies on this matter, including,
without limitation, the analysis relating to the trip ends
within the described Areas of Benefit as adjusted for the
various land-use categories which are attributable to new
development.
Section 9. The City Council hereby determines that
there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the
Development Fees and the cost of the Foothill/Eastern
Transportation Corridor. This determination is based on the
findings and determinations contained within the Fee Program and
the reports of the staff and consultants to the Transportation
Corridor Agencies, including the findings regarding trip ends
within the Areas of Benefit attributable to new development.
Section 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record
a certified copy of this Resolution with the Recorder of the
County of Orange.
Section 11. This Resolution shall take effect on the
date of the approval of the interim increase in Development Fees
by the Board of Directors of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation
Corridor Agency.
APPROVED, ADOPTED AND 'SIGNED this · 1989.
day of
MAYOR of the City of Tustin
ATTEST:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
SCHEDULE OF FEES
FOOTHILL/EASTERN
Zone A
Single Dwelling Units (SDU)
Multi-Dwelling Units (MDU)
Non-Residential (per sq. ft.)
$2,327
$1,359
$ 3.23
Zone B
Single Dwelling Units (SDU)
Multi-Dwelling Units (MDU)
Non-Residential (per sq. ft.)
$1,655
$ 963
$ 1.ss.
MAJOR THOROUG~ARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM
FOR
SAN JOAQUIN I-rrr3S TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
FOOT--TERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
Prepared by
Environmental Management
'lYans po rtation/Flood Control AgenC~ce
July 1985
(Revised by Transportation Corridor Agencies
September 1988)
Exhibit "A"
I
II
TABLE OF CONTEN-I'S
TITLE
Executive
Backgrotmd
Description of Corridor
Corridor P!an nino'
Estimated C~;~
Overall Financin~
Area of Benefit
Descr/ption of Area of Bene/it (AOB)
Fees
Deferral of Fees
Criteria for Collect/on of Fees
Development Exactions & Cr~l/t~
Annual Fee Adjustment
City Partidpation in Fee Pro/ram
1
3
4
$
6
8
9
11
16
23
24
24
27
27
-i-
~--XI~RIT NO.
I
X
LIST OF ~IT~
Area of Benefit Index Map with City
Boundaries
Resolution 82-598, Tranzportatioa
Corridor Development Policy
Area of ?nfluence for Corridor Users,
San Joaqu/n Plill~ Transportat/on Corridor
Area of Influence for Corridor Users,
FoothilFEastern Transportation Corridors
Area of Benet~t, San Joaq~,in
Transportation Corridor
Area of Benefit, Foothill/Eastern
Transportation Corridors
F~~cShare of Total Corridor
Fee Program Share of Total Corridor
Cosk F/ETC
Cost Per Trip End Analysis, SJHT~
Cost Per Trip End Analysis, F/E'rC
Daily Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
29-31
35
36-37
38~39
40
41
42.-43
,e
TABLE
IV.1
IV-2
VII-1
VII-2
VIH-1
VIH.2
VIII-3
VIII-4
LIST OF TABLr~
San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Cost
Foothil!/Eastem Transportation Corr/dor Cost
San Joaquin Hills AOB by Local Juris~ion
Foothill/Eastern AOB by Local Jurisdiction
Fee Program Share of Corridor Cost
Adjusted AOB Trip Ends
Fee Program Share by Land Use Category
Area of Benefit Fee~
7
7
11
14
17
19
20
21
~OR THOROUG~A.RE AND ~. ~GE FEE PROGRAM
FOR
SAN JOAQLrIN HILLS AND FOOTHTL!/EASTERN
~SPORTATION CO~RS
Executive
can no longer be
I_t . _ expected that facilities such as the San Joaq,,in H/lis
.... j .c~n ~ nmy.~ .n~..aea. rrom me traditional revenue sources used to
consu'uc~ southern t~amorma existing freeway network Supplemental funding
sources must therefore be developed ii' these im._l~_~rtant components of' Orange
County's transportation sywtem are to be devehJl~-u to provide relief to existing
congested facilities and"sup 'p°rtm)rderlyipevelop development within c/t/es and
fundingUninc°rp°ratedsource, areas, ent fees represent a potential supplemental
~T~ ,e~e?lop, m~en..t, fee.pro_gram is based upon Government Code Section.s 50029,
oo~o,.v ann t~ah/orma Con-~t/tution Article II, Section 7. The concept zs
furthe.r, mo.r.e b_as~ on the ..g~..eral pr/ndple that future develooment within
]~_r~_,,.s~. oecl b,en,efit..a?as _will _beneS. t from the construc~on of t~e. transportation
~.acmue_s ann snou~cl pay for them m proportion to projected corridor traffic
?ema~.d attribu~ble to the c~_ velopment. Future development within the benefit
areas ~s expected to account for 48% of the cost of the SJI-ITC and F/ETC. The
~em .aining cost of the corridors, representing benefits derived by existing
· evelopment w/thin the bened~t areas and corridor Us. ers outs/de the benefit areas,
~s proposed to be funded t~h traditional transition funding sources such
as existing federal and state programs, and addit/onal~ non-traditional sources,
such as toil resources. No assessment of ex/sting developed property is proposed.
·
the
,~ ._~,~.~,~u--- wereaevelo ~ea a. . p ~ tool to ass~ ~ definin~ the pro~ benefit areas.
~o~~ra~_aly~_, _zorn .es, wi,th 4% or?ore of, the.ir_t?.taI tr/p m _aking utilizing the
_ . w.r~n, ea..a zaxriy aen_~e pa~-r~rn, laenthSable phys/cal features closely
_approx~n_ a~;m. g ~ne pa~ were used to describe the boundaries of the benefit
~a~, eas.. Two_~e? zones, w~t. hin each Area of Benefit were established based upon
a~rec~ use of the corndo~. Traffic analysis zones with 8% or more of their total
trip m_king u_t/liz/z~ the corr/dor were defined in the higher fee zone (A). The
remainder of the zones were cIe6ned in the lower fee zone (B).
Assessment of fees on a tra/Ymc related bads was determined to be equitable. Trip
ends were selected as the least common denominator a.nd fees were estabL/shed by
dividing the proport/on of corridor cost attributable to each fee zone by the total
number of projected daily trip ends with/n each fee zone. Adjustments were made
to trip ends between '
ne~.gh~oo~ commerdal and res/dent/al land trees to reflect
the relative benefit of nedtgh~e hood commerc/al development to residences. Land
uses wer.e combined '_into general land use categcrdes (2 residential and 1
non-residential) for the purposes of applying fees to development projects.
Presently, as of Septemh_er 14, 1988, fee~ for each o£ the fee zones within the A..-eas
of Benefit are:
~ ~le Family Multi-Unit
dential Resident/al
Non-Residential
Zone A $1,372/unit $799/--~t $1.$4/sf.
Zone B $1,062/unit $620Amit $1.36/sf.
F/ET~
Zone A $1,360/unit $794/unit SL89/sf.
Zone B $ 967/unit $563/,n!t $1.10/sf.
Developers who are required to construct portions of the transportation corridors
will receive credit for that work toward the payment of their fees by the
_Tr, ~rt;a,.t, ion,Corridor .A~ency'pursuant to approved plans, specifications and
p. oI tae ,~gency, or oy agreements with Parti,~ executed prior to the
effective date. of tkiz First Amended and Restated ,agreement. The amount o£
~~'~mt'~~n~~ f.~.~~~ with, sub, sequent.rev~. ' .°n's ~ the f~ program nor
aUP~,e~n mSU3 su_o i.~s~e-.c' ,em~v~ons be required once such
y gr nt. Th ~ credit _ y be transferred in
accordance with the visions of ~ct/on XI to subsequent owners of the propewty
fi-om which the cre~were generated.. ~
·
Pa .Yment of fees for residential multi-unit rental projects rn~v be deferr-~ cji' -
p,? ,- the V_me p,y ,t p o :d,
~ ~-uxu~y ru ~ne amoun~ ol the zee plus 1o~o.
Properties which ar~ exempt from payment of property taxes will generally be
exempt from payment of corridor fee~. Governmental owned and constructed
facilities and utilities will be exempt unless the fac/lity is used for commercial or
revenue generating purposes.
Portions of thirteen cities are included within the benefit areas for the SJHTC and
_fEf~.~. in_ _a_d_di_',tion. toj~ortions of the,uni~.,,.co.rpo_rated .County of Or_ ange. The
~.ay a?op~...a ze~. ?rog~'.am only w~th,n the unincorporated areas.
ar~zmpa~on oy c~ues, ~nerelOre, is an imoortant ingredient to a su~ooo~.~
program that does not create meqmties to'property ~n-~rs within d~i'~}
j-,xrisdictioas. City and County cooperation 'is not only required in tile ~doption of'
a prob..am an .c, ol ,ectio, n of_ fees, but should extend to ded~ons regarding
expena~ture oz ~ne tunas. Joint Powers Agencies consisting of City and (~ountv
zne_mbe_rs.have, been created to plan, design, ~n~ance, ~nd construct the CorridOrs,
and to determine the order of phasing of construction of corridor segments when
fdeeeVelop, e.~ are r_equired to con_struct corridor improvements in lieu of payment of
$. All fees collected under this program will be deposited in accounts
specfi~cally for the transportation corridors to accomplish this purpose.
-2-
I.
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BKIDGE FEE PRO,
FOR
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS AND FOOTHI~ ~I,~STE!
TRANSPORTATION CORRID0~
BACKGROUND
Government Code Sections 50029 and 66484.3 permit the
local ordi-,nces to re~.~ payme.nt of f. ee?..a~, a condi.t/.o~n
final map or as a co.nditio.n, of
defraying the actual or estmaa~.
waterways, railways, freeways and canyons, or construct
thoroughfares in Orange County.
Pursuant to the above provisions of'~the` _Gov_ernmen~Cod
Superv/~rs adop.t~.d _~ci~n 7-9.-3~1~6. ,of the
brid~e construction fees t~ be_ pa~a oy suo<nwu~
applicants in the County of Orange.
On April 21, 1982, the Board of Supervisors, by Resoluti,
direc/ed the Environmental Management_Agency
analyzing poten_tial.Areas of Bene~_fi~_an~?
-.~,~ oI.d;=~,~nt of a fee DrosFrs~m. · ne J~J,,,-~, ~,.~
developers of subdivisions wm~ contain ~r~,v~__~_,
r - ' ' -Of, wa acle
corridor, would dedicat~ n ht - y, gr
portions of the corridor _-rtl psrticipa~e in ~y e~mblish,
progr~n~
On February 15, 1983, the Board of' Supervi~rs, by Res
Foothi~UEastarn Transportation uorm~ors aha crtr. e~u
subdividers to enter int~ contract~ ~ par~icipa~ tn corr
implementation pending est~bliskmen~ of a fee pro. an
Resolution No. 45-83 recommencun~ zaa~ ~ne Doaru
Major Thoroughfare _~nd Brid~e Fee Pr~rams £~r the
Tr~n~portation Corridor and t~he Foothill/Eastern Tran
adop~ Areas of Benefi~ and Nla~or. ~rno..rou~_~ 'n ~'"
u nlncorvorated Orange Coun.ty fo~_ tl~.e? ~o~__~q~___.~
Foot_hill~E~ Transportation Uorn~or~
Tr~n.~ortation Uommm~on, one ~_u~u_au~ ~ ~. ~. 'e~
the formation of the San Joaqum ~ xr~a
,
The Count7 and various cities within the Area of Benefit of the San
J,o.a ,qu~ Hills~cl F.oo~astern Transporta~on Corridors formed two
~o~. ~owers Agen~es ir~own as the San ~oa~ ~ Transr~rt~ti~-
~orndor and the Foothill/Eastern Tra~ tion Co~'/~or ~-
_Agency. A/ency porta
N~~b~rdinances and resolutions to effect the Fee Program
have been~-r-~- y all parties of the Agency, and such program is now
being fully implementecL
DESCRIPTION OF CORRrDOR
A TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR is a high-speed, Mgh volume,
access-controlled m~lt/modal facility with a mecl/an o£ su/~cient width to
be ut/l/zed for transit considerations such as//xed rail or h/gh-occupancv.
vehicles, and facilit/es necessary for collection of tolls. The corridors
provide for high speed movement of vehicular traf~c where projected
~~es ~ .mai. or arterial hi.'ghway capacities. These mutes will
:__n_cu_o_n__._s~u, .a~. _w~,n-e~..wa. ys...an.d exp ~r~ss~?ays _and should_eventu~tly be
,,;-~?por.a?a m~ u~.e ?r.a~e _mgnway ~ys~em. They are, therefore,
ae~ea ~o meet rr~n,mum State and Federal standards..
n~ the n .e~d..for m. aj.o.r t}'. anspo.rtation corridors genera',~/by
ev?.op_men% uae relag~v_eAy rapid growth and planned future'
~opme.~t m. ,Ora.n,g~e C?. ~,~also contr/butes directly to such neecL
· · ,s¥cn ..~rn_a_ors tr'oo_t-,,, mastera and San Joaquia HH~s) are
mcmaea on the Master Plan of'Arterial Highways (I%~AH), and are a
p~mpone, nt oft he Tr-,~sportation Element of the Orange County Ge.neral
an and the Tr_~- _~portat/on Elernent~ of the General Plan., of ~]! city
art/es wit. hi, which such corT/dors have b~n ~la~-ed tO l~
Transportat/on corridors
. ,, are d.epi_ct~_ on the MPAH map as either
c?ncep~uauyt~l~ or established ali~-ments. These facilities are part
of_ a_ planned : cir_cu/ation _system necessary to support develepment
of, the Count7 in _acc~. rdance ~wi. th e_~-,ting General Plan Land Use
~ements of the County and C~ty Parties. These facilities will also relieve
recurrent contestion on major arterials and freeways in Orange County.
The SAN JOAQUI~ HILr,S TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR_ is planned
as a hith-speedJ, high capacity, access-control/ed tr~--~portation facility to
serve local and reTional traffic and transit needs. Its alignment was ~
establ~hed in 1979 as part of the MiPAH and Transportation Element of
the Orange County General Plan. That alignment includes the Corona del
Mar Freeway fRoute 73) in the Cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Bea ch and
_.hu'ine and extends southeasterly approx/mately 15 mi!es to join the San
Diego Freeway (/-5) between Avery Parkway and Junipero Serra P. oad
.near the City of San Juan Capistrano (see Exhibit I). It will be desizned
to comport with scen/c h/~hway standards and provide approxima:e~y six
to ten teneral ~~~se travel lanes, with a median of sufficient width to
an..ccom. r"_od.a..~., high-occup_ancy veh/cle (HOV) lanes and spec~ial
t fa .c~.[Ues. if..requ/re~, in. the future: The central segment of the
-. r~..aor wm carry uae grea~st amount of traffic because there are a
],r-~,ted number of' alternative parallel highway facilities. Traffic volumes'
on the south end of the corridor are lowest alont the route as a result of
countywide traffic '- --'
orient,.ion, which Ls generally to the north. Access to
..th,e.co,rridor wfl!.l>e limited to approximately 12 grade-separate
_m?,.r.c.n_a~_, .g?.wit,h arterial..highwa~ as -ell as provisions for future
.a]~a~,~_on_m, m ,r~rc~. ang? wi. th arterial hiiAwa.vs plus provisiorm for future
=u~uonal exciu.~ve mter~ange ramps for HOVlanes. Additional bridges
may be required as the c~rr/d~ cros.~ mabstantial canyons and water
¢0~,
The ~R~ TRANSPORTATION CO~OR is currently shown as a
will~a~..~.u.~e ~_~r~a~, ge ~ry ~n~ r~ ~e prete~ ~~atives
~_ ~~~~~_~_~e en~nmez~ ~ew pr~e~ ~nt~ues.
,ne ~wwl~a, 'I~8~RTA~ON ~~O~ is ~ e~bUsh~
~~f~~~n th~ E~ ~~or ~d a ~int no~herly or ~ga
~,_7~ ~a a .~gfep~u~ ~~ent ~~ that ~t ~d the S~
~omaor ~ m~ the ~v~de F~av (~u~ 91) be~n We~
C~so9 ~ ~a om~ C~$on ~a ~ndint ~utheas~rls
a;pr?m,~s la mJl~ ~ a ~t ~u~y of the San~ ~a Fr~way
~.muor ~ on~a~ ar ~e ~~ ~maor ~~n Santiago C~yon
,e~e~ ~d %~na ~~~rly appro~~ly a2
m m~ ~ ~ego ~ay (I-5) ~or ~ ~emen~ ~ 8~ ~ego
~. It m ~ti~pa~ ~e E~m ~dor ~ be a 1~~~, ~ade
p~~ ~a~l ~ ~d ~e F~thill ~dor, a lan&cap~~dor
wM~ ~clud~ to~ ~ ~ ~ener~ ~avel l~es ~th me~a~
~~men~ ~ n~~. Ac~ ~ the ~dor ~ ~ limi~ ~
~ad~P~~,~rc~an~ ~ ~~ ~ghways pl~ pro~sio~ for
CORRIT~R PIA_N~G
l__Th~__~ll~V_el o,t tacili,.t~, pl~anne<I in th.i~.~por~ will support, currently adopted.
..u~. pj,..a~s, oi rn.e_uounty and Cities Su,~roxmding the corridors. ~ the
e~v~.e_m,u~__e~Fe~ ~a~na ~o .u.uty sub. sequent:l, y a, mend their existing General
~_~an~a ~.s~s. 1/2 .e~. ents_, p.,.a~..ic~arly tn are~ serving the Foothill and
~rn i~'nclors, r. nose fac/lit~es may req-~re adjustments in lanes to
accommodate that growth It/s intended that the fee adopted under this
program will be reevaluated Lf an add/t/on~ level facility is needed to
serve increased intensities planned in adoF'.~cl land use Elements of their
General Plan. In the event that such in te n..~ t/ es are decreased, and
reduction in the level of fac/lity then/s still feasible in view of rights of
way then acquired, planning, design, eng/aaeering and construction then
completed and financing commitments made, such fee also ~-ill be
re~.au_ve.iy _undeveloped area~ of the ~ty. Exceptions to this are either
end of the S_an Joaquin Hilh Transportation Corndor and the central
segments of the FootMll/Ea.ecern Transportat/on Corridors. Each corridor
trav~ areas ofhilly terrain'. A majority of t.he areas traversed by the
corl'idor~j/s zoned l:~tanned Commlxnity with tentative tracts in various
stage~ of approval.
An alignment was selected by the Board of' Su ' rs for the San
oa~tun I-hll:s Transportation Comdor on November 28, 1979 and the
n..oyt~..westerl, y segment of the Foothill Corridor on biay 25, 1983. More
detailed e, .nv~. ~ee~-ing ,wor,k ia _azrrenUy undery_ ay_ on the San Joaquin Hills
l.r.a~. 1~. x~auon ~.~orriaor w refine the selected alignment and determlr, e
ngnr~ot.wa? _requirements. Similar detailed engineering is also in
~,_ro .g~,ss f~,.the northw.es .t~.. ly sega., ent Of the Foothill Transportation
~orr~.a. or..,~. ~nt select, on studies also are underway on the Eastern
rnaor and the southerly end of the Foothill Corridor between about Oso
Parkway and I-5.
_It is proposed that all corridors will eventually be added to the State
Hi~hwar Sy~.~ ~
~ _State_leg~lation_(AB 86) h,az been signed into law
hlch redes~nbe~
W. Sta~e Rout~ 73 (Corona Del M~r Freeway) to include
~e ~aF._~o~_quin Hills Transportation Corridor. Legislation ($B 2048 and
~? Z.049),.Chapt~rs 1363 ~nd 1364, respectively, of' the Statutes of' 1983)
~u~o nave ~.n enacted which des/ the E~ and Foothill
· r~msportation Corridors as State ~es 23! .~d 241, respectively.
ES~TED COSTS
The co~c~.'.on costs include e~_'mates for ail corridor grading and'
.gener_aA travel lane ~mprovements including bridges, structural section.
?.terchanges_, partial landscaping, and arterial highway realignments
~.c~ _t?d by the corridor alignments. The cost of grading general
High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes is included but not the cost of HOV
_.s. ~t~ct,ur,~.se~i, .'on; bridg.es:.medi_an barrie~ or ~ _~ciM access ramps. It is
m~e.na.ea ~na_~_ _unp/eme. ntation of any tranmt guideway or HOV facilities, if
needed, would be provided from other fund~g sources.
Other cos~ included for both Corridors includes engineering design,
administration, construction in-~'tion and right-of-way acquisition costs.
It is proposed that developers wiI1 dedicate the majority of right-of-way for
the transportation corridors. The cost estimate includes a cost for the'
p.o .r~ion of the fight-of-way Which would exceed a standard major arterial
mgl~way constructed along the corridor alignment excluding slope
~e.a~ments. The portion of.right-of-way equivalent to a major arterial
hignw.aev is excluded fi.om the estimate to maintain a policy consistent.,
wi~ o.r~_e_r arte~ highway dedications._ The cost of slope easements is
excluded because of the wide variations between the natural terrain
conditions and final development of adjacent lands, the inability to
estimate the easement areas with certainty, and for consistency with
existing arterial development policy. Right-of-way required to realign any
intersecting arterial highway was also excluded fi'om the cost estimate on
the assumption that it will be dedicated in accordance with established
development policy. The right-of-way to be included as part of the corridor
cost was aasurned to have a value of $50,000/acre, to be adjusted by the
ot~ency in accordance with the California Construction Cost Index, or
er comparable index selected by the Board.
_?~~~ ~e p~e~~~on pas b~ on ~e foHo~g ~~a~s
p~p~ ~ ~e ~~ a~g the ~~ H ~C s~dy work,
~~ by ~e Agen~ ~ accord~ce ~th ~e ~o~a ~~c~on
~st hd~ or other ~mp~able ~d~ ~I~ by the Bo~d.
TABLE IV.1
SAN JOAQLqN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR COST
Co~ction:
(~.,on~eerin~· & Admire:
ntingenaes:
R/ght Of Way (in exce~
of Major Arterial Hwy.):
$259,736,000
38,960,000
25,974,000
J6,990,000
Total (for purposes
of Fee Program):
$341,6~),000
B. FOOTB'IT.T~'YE~ TRANSPORTATION CORI~rI')ORS (F/E'I~)
e .c?t for constructing the Foothill/Eastern Trans~rtation
tudors was estimated from information obtained/i'om the Weir
Canyon Park Road Study dated October, 1982, the Foothill
Tr~.tion Corridor Route Location Study dated December, 1982
~and ~jec~.'.on..of .costs fro _re. the_ San Joaquin ~ Transportation '
t~orrlaor, um~ phc'es treed m the cost estimate8 are considered to -
adequately estim,te the cost in 1984 dolJaz~. The or/ginal est/m-ted
_costs, to ~ adiust~ by the Agency in accordance with the Califor~a
t~o~ction Cos~ Index, are as follows:
TABLE IV.2
FOO~RN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS Cos~r
Foothill ~ ~
Construction: $233,557,000
Eng. & Admln~: 35,033,~
Contingencies: 35,033,000
Right Of Way
(in excess of
Major Art. Hwy.): 14.151.000
Total (for purposes
of Fee Progi-am): $317,774,000
21,528,500
21,528,500
11.790,00(0
$198,373,000
$377,083,000
56,561,500
56,561,500
25,941.000
$516,147,000
.7-
Ve
OVERALL FI1WANCL~G
,The ,Board of Su. per~. '_~rs h~_establi.~hed a tr~rtation corridor'
.a. ev_elopment poh'cy (E~hibit H), also implemented by the .Agency and all of
~.tz fi?ties, which, defi~es_the corridor implementation obligations of la~d
.d. evelopme_nt .l:n-oject.~, and as noted in Se~ion I of t_his report has indicated
zrz general intent to ~e all new development to bear a portion of the
costs of the corridors~ by play-ment of development fees (Major
Th. or.ouihfare Fee_). Fu~cts from other more traditional sources (e.g.,
existing ..s~a. te _and federal taxes on motor vehicle fy. el) and fi,om other
n,o~-tradi.t/onal_ so _urces (e.g., .toll reven_ues) will be sought for the portion
ot me co.s~ not funded by development fees.
State Route 73 (Corona Del Mar Freeway) has been legislatively
· __.a-~,_,?~_r~a___~o~n., .~o~,r~dor., ?..mjLa:r..!egis.M. tion h..az been approved by the
~,=Sam~_u~. too z .v~, _ann ?.~..jz_u4~) and ~s pendi-g signature by the
~zov. ernor ~o place the ~-oothlWEastern Corridors in the State Highway
oys~em.
~Th~S_ .a~n~.Jo, a_,q~_ __.Hillff Tr~ ~n~r~.,t!on .Corri-doralso has been designated
,, ~u~ m?~. paa~., o~_ _a _~_e~_erai pu_o~ pro~ .ect authorized by Hlt2, Surface
j~ra~n~!~, r~a,u,on ~..c~ o~. _19~6, thereby m~n~. it eli~le for a maximum of
o~o7o ze?. ~ai .nm.~, Lt. ap. proved by the California Transportation
~omm, smon m its 8tare Trznsportation Improvement Program (STEP).
.Maj_or.,Thoro .u~kf .are & Bridge Fee Program fccuses only on the
on of _~e corridor ,mplementation costs which may be attributable to
new growth and for which development fees are proposed.
The statutes identified in Section I of this report which authorize the
ellec~i. '.o.n.o.f d.eve, l.op. ment fees specify that an Area of Benefit (AOB) shaft
es~ao.~, l~ed_w, hich e.ncompasses real property., ~wMch will benefit from
c?ustructmu o_f the m~or thorough/ares and bridses. The method of
ae.te~ the AOB ~nd the share of total corridor costs proposed to be
paid by new development in the form of fees is explained in Sections VI
and VI~ of this report.
The originally e~tim_~ted corridor costs, subject to adjustment as
h reviously stated, and the portions allocated to new development through
e Major Thoroughfare and Bridge (MT&B) fee program are:
New Development_
San Joaquin Hills:
Foothill/Eastern:
Approrimate
Total Cost_ Share. of Cost _%___
$341,660,000 $165,500,104 48.4%
$516,147,000 $250.228,066 48.5%
Vie
O~ant a_ccordance with current Agency Imlicy, new developments within the path
the tr_ansportati.on cor~..'do, rs will be conditioned to dedicate right-of, way
a grade the corndor with,n_ the boundaries of' the development, construct
,arterial, overcro.s~ for iateraal arterial highways and construct corridor
~ave. l lanes and interchange ramps required immediately for access to the
_ae,v_.elop. m, ent .or f_or. clo .s?e of short gaps in the tr_aasportation system The
esuma~ea cos~ of these improvements mcludin the estlm~ted value of R/W
dedication in ~,
excess of that recited for a st. an, ard major arterial highway
(excluding slope ea-~ements) will be considered as a credit against the
required MT&B fees to the extent that these costs are included in the fee
program.
AREA OF BENEFIT
_
e.or. der._to _establish an MT&B fee program, an Area of Benefit (AOB) mu.st
~de..ntified wi,t~ which fees may be _required upon issuance ofbuildlng
?,enmrz_o_r recoraati.'on.of final maps to defray the cost of the major
~noroughfares and oriages.
Construction of the transportation corridors will provide key facilities to
en:s..u~, that_~e Cotmty's transportation system is in balance with both
.e?srmg and future land uses. The benefits, therefore, accrue not only to
bose pro'perties which generate a high demand for use of the corridor but
~_o,se whi~......will benefit from less con _g?.stion and delay on the arterial
b~-~nway' and freeway system serving the property. Implementation of' a
aaancea system, including the corridors, will_ furthermore.
by allowing approval of land ~ to the level
trans~rtation
benefit undeveIoped properties
in County and City General Plans.
~,rope. r~es wm. _ oenen~ from co _mstrr!ction of the transportation corridors.
~aevelo.p. men. t feels. are proposed to finance a portion of the corridors
proportional to the traffic demands, measured in trip ends, created by new
d~secO ,w~.. Tl~.e p?rtio.n of cost based upon e~stin_g trip ends represents the
ne.n~ to aeveloped properties. Revenue for the cost allocated to existing
evelopment will be provided from public funding ~ourc~ identified in
tion V, "Overall Financing," ~f this report an~ therefore, will not be
assessed to individuz.l properties.
.The methodology u~d to determin~e the AOB co~d of determining the
influenc~, the c_orri_dor had on tn'ps made within the County. The angYysis
was conducted with a system of computer vrotrams known a~ UTPS~
!V.r, ban. T. ran.s~ti..on Pla _n~g Systems)'. T~e computer programs were
~uo.._r~l_l_orospec~c_Ur_ ange _County application a.nd are comrr~_ nly known as
e ~t)UCS~ travel demand model
U:rYS is a batiery of sophisticated computer programs develo ,~.d and sponsored by
the Federal Urban Ma~s Transportation .Agency (UMTA}/'or ~recasting travel
demand.
South Orange Couaty Circulation Study tSOCCS) travel demand forecasting model
developed by EMA/I'ransportation Planning Division.
-9-
The model subdivides Orange County and potions of adjacent Los Angele~
County into more than 500 traffic analysis zones (TAZ~. The model
estimates the number each TAZ
___ of person trips generates based on
socioeconomic variables such as 'popular/on, empl~t, income and
number of housing units. These trips are then di.~ted from each zone to
,all other zones_ by a . . The model then determines
well-established procedure.
travel
_ _w, ~n. p.a o~nw a _mgn~way nerw. orr,.. 'the soaoecon.o?/c data used in the AOB
e r oo~nm 'lransport, a~on ~.~xna~ ~may.
.U_siE_g tl~,trip-mak~ng data de_scribed above, a select link analysis (program
UR, O .A~..) w~ ~rfo .rmed to determ;ne.the number of corridor, related trip
~n_aS which. ,ong~,a.~ '.m, or,are destine~..for, each traffic analyms zone (TAZ).
· . ese cp. maor-.t .a~..~.p enas were ~ m conjunction with the total TAZ
__~ooy ~-~.~ w. m~c_n .use ~ne co.rn, a~or; ~e r~esu2tip~.percentages were poste~l
~. ~..,.,.z, maps m z~o increments t~xnioi~s ~.t aha iv).
The influence area for each of the corridors is quite pronounced at the 4%
and greater trip use level as shown on the exh/bits, The pattern of corridor
usage becomes erratic below the 4% level
The determination of the AOB for each of the transportation corridors was
fboallsed .primal..'...y on the above corridor intquence areas. However, the
o,w .m.g. additi, onal cEi.'teria_were_used to supplement the percent of corridor
use aara ~o anmyze relative benefits:
1,
Corridor trip ends exceed 1.75 trip ends per groas acre of the TAZ.
Total corridor trip ends per TAZ exceed-2,000.
Trip end growth within each TAZ exceeds 45%.
Perceived direct and indirect bene6~ to the transportation system_
I~entifi.able physical and planned features doc-ely appmrimating the patte.--n
o corridor usage were used to describe the bounda_--ies of the benefit areas.
Within each Area of Benefit, some lands were judged to receive more benefit
than others from the construction of the corridors. Developments which
~eate rel_atively high demands for use of the corridors were placed in a
clztfereut fee zone within the Area of Benefit than oth~ developments with
less direct use. The boundaries between the fee zones were determined
utfliz/ng the TAZ data on Exhibits ITt and IV. Traffic analysis zones where
the percentage of corridor trip ends equals or exceeds 8% were defined as
Zone A. Traffic analysis zones with less than 8% u.:~e were defined as Zone
B. Zone A and B are depicted on Exhibit I.
UROAD is one of the computer progr~m.~ in UTPS. It is a comprehensive flex/ble
highway assignment and analysis prOgram.
DESCRIFrlON OF AREA OF BENE~T (AOB~)
The AOB% for the San Joaquin Hills and the combined Foothill/Eastern
_C~e_r~_ 'd? include bot.h, incorl~, rated and unin~ated terr/tory and
~. nerauy encompass the southeasterly halt' of ~e County az
/llustrated on Exhibit I.
SAN JOAQUIN KIT.LS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
A more detailed map of the San Joaquin M;~ Transportation Corridor
AOB iz shown on E~hlbit V. This AOB cont~in~ approximately 122
Aso~Bu~.' miles.. All or portions of the following cities are within this
TABr,E ¥'II- 1
SAN JOAQUIN HILT~ AOB BY LOCAL JURISDICTION
Costa Mesa
Irvine
Laguna Beach
Mi~on Viejo
Newport Beach
San Clemente
San Juan Capistrano
Santa Aha
Uain~rated Territory
Total
Area Included in AOB
32sq. miles
222 5.6
(included in the
'U-h~cor~rated
Territory area)
8.3
3.8
82
54.1
68.3 (includingthe
area within the
newly incorporated
City of Mission
Viejo)
~nA~0B is~ .b?un~d..ed b_y_t, he Pacific Ocean: _be~mn/ng at the eas~rly
a' aarT. o, ~e ~}_y of Newport Beach at the Pacific Ocean; thence
~ong sa~a ex-~em~ boundary defined by annexation nos. 843, 64,897,
84, and 555 to it~ intersect/on with an extension of Fi?ch Avenue;
thence northwesterly along said extension to l~ffth Avenue; thence
northwesterly along the centerl{ne of' said F'xflJa Avenue to Coast
._~.' ,hway;the_nce northw _esterly a/ong the centerline of said Coast
nway to the crossing of the Upper Newport Bay;, thence along a
line northerly through said Up ..]~r. Newport Bay to the point where the
~g ' - ' C el from
Upper Newport Bay to University Drive; thence westerly along the
centerline of said University Drive to Santa Aaa Avenue; thence
-11-
ortherly along the centerl/ne of said Santa Ann Avenue to Corona Del
~ F,r. eewa2, (S. _t~_te Route 73); thence northwesterly along the
c_en.~er .ane o_~ sa~d Corona. Del Mar Freeway to .the San Diego Freeway
~mte~.r~tate_Route 405); thence westerly along the centerline of said
oan._b],.ego Fr, ee.w,a,y, to_ Harbor Blvd.; thenc_s north~ly along the
cen~erane oz sma harbor Blvd. to MacArthur Blvd.; thence easterly
along the centerl~ne of said MacA~hur Blvd. to Main Street: thenc~e
,n~ortherly .alon. g t~,e ce.n, terl!ne of_.said Ma~. Street to Dyer l~ad;
~ve~ nce ~1¥ ~o.n~ r,n.e c~.nter '_l~ne or' smd_.Dyer Road to Grand
_.v,.enue; u~ence northerly .along the centerline of said Grand Avenue to
,Edinger Avenue; thence_eaet~_ly along the centerline of said Edinger
of nea. . a ong .ae center_ ,,e or a d Newpor Mesa
~ ee.w.a~[.w waz~_ er Avenue; thence southe~_terly along the centerl./ne
o, s~ud Warner Avenue to Red Hill Avenue; thence southwesterly
along the centerli,~e o£ said Red Hill Avenue to Alton Avenue; thence
- .n. orthw~ly along the centex-llne oir said Alton Avenue to
-~ewport-Coeta ]kiesa Freeway; thence southwesterly along the
centerline of said Newl>ort-Cos~ Mesa Freeway to the San Diego
Fr~_way (Interstate 4Q_5); thence_so~_theasterly along the centerline of
said In.terstate .4~). 5 to Interstate 5; thence southerly along the
_c?.? Lor the
,o,~. ~ so.ur, n. eriy oounaary_ af .t~.cho. M/ssi_on Viejo (approrlrnate]y at
.v~a ~_scolaz..'..); thence south~ly along the Rancho Mission Viejo
undar~e a~_ _d~ by Record o/Survey 9/15-18 to the easterly
_ ~ of. ,T~a. ct_N_o_: .6351_; thence _w _eeterly along the southerly line
~z~ ~½.ra? Ho. t~l_to the _easterly boundary at Parcel Map No.
No. ov-~! to Rancho v xejo road; thence southerly along the
cen.ter!ine, of said Rancho_ Viejo Road to Ortega Highway; thence
e, asr~ly ~ong the ce_nte_rline of s~i. 'd Ortega I-lighwa? to La Novia
.~venue; u~,e~.ce southerly along the centerllne of said La Novia
,A~venue and ~ts proposed_ extension to Tentative Tract No. 11648;
,~,aen_c_e_ .s?the_rly along the easterly boundary of said Tentative Tract
No. 11644/to the boundary of Tentative Tract No. 11832; thence
southerly along the easterly boundary of said Tentative Tract No.
11832 to the norther~j~ boundary of Tract No. 8087; thence easterly
and southerly along e lx~undary of said Tract No. 8087 to the
boundary of Tract No. 9784; thence easterly along the northerly
boundary of said Tract No. 9784 and the prolongation of said bound.kD,
to the bound_ ary of the .C. ity of San Juan Capistrano; thence
~utheas~.. ly .along_sa~..d city ext.e...rnal boundary defined by
mc_orporat~on bou_ndanes of April 19, 1961 and annexation nos. 105 '
and 24 and dearmexationtP~e ~ty resolution 62-11-12-2 to Interstate
5; thence southerly along centerline of said Interstate 5 to its
intersection with the Orange/San Diego Count~ line; and thence
southerly along said County llne to the Pacific Ocean_
.Zone A is bounded on the south by the Pacific Ocean and is described
as follows: Beg/nning at the intersection of the total Area of Benefit
-12-
westerly boundary with the Pacific Ocean; thence along said total Area
of Benefit boundary to Marguerite Avenue; thence northerly along the
?~enterline of s_aid Marguerite Av.enue to San JoaQu/n Hills Road;
~ence easterly along the centerhne of said San J'oaquin Hills Road to
S_pyg!ass Hill Road; thence northerly along the centerline of said
Spyg .la? Hill Road to San M/guel Drive; thence northerly along the
centerline of said San Miguel Drive to Ford Road; thence
north, eazter_ly along the centerllne of said Ford Road and its proposed
northe~rly extension as shown on the Orange County Master Plan
.o. fArtenal H/ghways dated August 8, 1984, tolCon/fa Canyon Road;
tt~ence e.asterly dong the centerline of sa/d Boni~ Canyon Road to the
_p~~.sou_t_herly exten.~.'on of Sand Canyon Avenue a~ shown on
ragh ,a ; thenc alo. g the
cenmr-oe or ~ne proposed extendon of Sand Canyon Avenue to the
.w~ly extendon of_ Bake Parkway as shown on said Master Plan of
Arter/al Highways; thence eazterly along the centerline of the
??posed extension of sa_id Bake Parkway to Laguna Canyon Road;
~.aence southerly along the centerllne of sa/d Laguna Canyon Road to
th.eib-, oposed we..~erly ex/en~ion of Santa Maria Avenue as shown on
sa~d.M.aster P_lan of Arterial I-Iighway~; thence easterly along the
~n .t~rh. ne of the proposed extension of Santa Maria Avenue and Santa
mana..Avenue toMoulton Parkway; thence southerly along the
of_ the.c the is ong the
censer-ne of said Moulton Parkway to El Toro Road, thence
r.o~~_rly along ~e centerl/ne of said E1 Toro Road to Paseo .de.
alenc~a; thence southeasterly along the centerline of said El Toro
Road to Paseo de Valencia; thence southeazterly along the centerline
of said Pazeo de Valencia and its e~ly prolongation to inter~-t
Inters~te 5 wlfich is also the easterly boundary of the total Area of
~o~~~n~ efit_;_thenc_e south_erly along said easterly boundary of the total
.o.f B. enefit bout. dary to where it again inter~z Interstate 5 in
IhT. tory _of C _ _z~o Las 1~_ mhl?s; thence northerly along the
~rrme of said Interstate 5 to San Juan Creek Road; thence
w_esterly along the centerl/ne of said San Juan Creek Road to Camlno
~apistrano; thence northerly along the centerline of said Cam/no
C~a~.o _to_ Del Obispo Street; thence westerly along the centerline
o, .~d,.Del O. biz .po.S. treet_to Alipaz_Street; thence southerly along the
c_en~ernne oz said Alipaz Street to Camino Del Ay/on; thence westerly
along the centerline of said Camino Del Avion and its oroposed
.w.~ly prologgation as shown on said M~~ Plan o~'Arterial
rl~gh~ys, to Crown Valley Park'wa~, thence southerly along the
centeriine of said Crown Valley Park-way to Monarch ]~ay Drive;
the.nce southwes_terly along Monarch Bay Drive and its southwesterly
prolongat/on to the Pacific Oceam
~Z~eu .B' is described by the total San Joaqu./n I-Iill~ Area of Benefit
ding Zone A as described above.
-13-
B.
FOOTH/LIJEASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
A single Area of Benel~t was selected for the combined Foothill an~
·
,Eastern,T~. _ .a~, ,l?rtatio.n..C, ori-i_'do.~... _beLcauze of_corridor usage patter-ns.
~ m~or.e .ae _r.!~_ea map of the Footh,llfEastern Corridors AOB is sho-~n
on ,;-hibit VI. This AOB contains approximately 291 square miles.
AH or portions of the following cities are included in this AOB:
TABLE VII-2
FOOTItlI,I~~'TERN AOB BY LOCAL JURISDICTION
City Area Included in AOB
_
Anaheim
lrvine
Mission Viejo
Orange
San Clemente
San Juan Capi.strano
Santa Aha
Villa Park
Yorba Linda
City Subtotal
Unincorporated Territory
14.1 sq. miles
18.9
(included within
the "Unincorporated
Territory" area)
10.6
13.5
$.0
2.8
11.1
2.'1
95.8
194.7 (including the
area within the
newly incorporated
City of Mission
Viejo)
Total 290.5 sq. miles
The AOB is bounded generally by the northerly boundary of the San
J_oaquin_Hills Transportation Corridor AOB from the San Diego
County Line to the intersection of the San Diego Freeway (State R.-ute
405) and the Newport-Costa Mesa Freeway (State Route 55); thence
northeasterly along the centerline of State Route 55 to Alton Avenue;
thence southeasterly along the centerline of said Alton Avenue to Red
.Hill Avenue; thence northeasterly along the centerline of said Red Hill
A_ven. u_e _to Warner Avenue_; thence northeasterly along the centerli.ue
0.f said W _a!-ner Avenue to S_tate Route 55; thence northeasterly along
the centerline of said State Route 55 to Edinger Avenue; thence
xesterly along the centerline of said E~nger Avenue to Grand .
venue; thence northerly along the centerline of said Grand Avenue to
Seventeenth Street; thence easterly along the centerline of said
Seventeenth Street to State Route 55; thence northerly along the
centerline of said State Route 55 to the Riverside Freeway (State
Route 91); thence northwesterly along the centerline of said State
Route 91 to Tustin Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline o£
said Tustin Avenue to Jefferson Street; thence northerly along said
Jefferson Street to the southerly, city limit~ of Flacentia; thence along
the external boundary o_f_s~_id_ c~ty llmlt~ defined by annexat/on nos.
69-1, 76-1, 71-01, 65-4, 6,%3, 6401, 65-7, 63-4, 63-2, 64-4, and 72-2 to
its intersection with Imperial H/~hwav- Flacent/a
mgnway; ~ence southwesterly along the oenterline of said Imper/al
_Highway to Valley View Avenue; thence northerly along the centerLine
of sa/d Valley View Avenue and its prolongation to the southerly
_bot..daVy..of Ch~o Hil_l~_State Park thence easterly along the
~l~r~ly ~una_ary of Cj~i-o Hill, State Park to its intersection with
ang ~an Bernar no County line; thence southeasterly along
the Orange County llne to the botmdary of the San Joaquin ~ills
~ransportation Corr/dor Area of BeheSt.
A_' .b~.s at the .Ora. nge/San .B. ernar.d/ao County llne where said
~ ~me rote .r~z the c. en _terh~e of the proposed extendon of La
~_m~ ~venye. as** s. nown.o_n t?_e_ Or _ange County Master Plan of Arterial
_~m~_~a~-aa~ .Au~-us, t 8, 1.984; thenc?_ westerly along the centerline
~ ~a~a pr~pose<l _lLa r.amxa ?venu. e to the proposed extension of
~~ C .a~.yon goad as shown m said Master Plan of Arterial
_mgnways; ~hence southerly along the centerline of said proposed
Gypsu~ Canyon Road to the Riverside Freeway (State Route 9_1);
th .e~c. e westerly along the centerline of said State route 91 to the
northw~rly prolongation of the easterly bounj~ of the Wallace
Ranch as shown in Orange County Record of Survey 2.5; thence
southeast_ rly along said prolongation of the easterly boundary of the
Wallace Ranch and contin
. ~ southeasterly along sa/d easterly
.boundary to the north~ly corner of the Oak lqill~ Ranch as shown
boundary of said Oak nmz nancn as shown in said Record of Survey
2-5 and continuing southwesterly along the southerly boundary of said
Oak ~ Ranch as shown in sa/d Record of Survey 2-5 to the
/terPOSed southerly exten~on of Weir Canyon Road as shown on said
Plan of Arterial H/ghwa~; thence southerly along said Weir
Canyon Road to the north boundary of Tentative Tract No. 13627 in
the City of Tuztin; thence southerly along the centerli~e of Jamboree
Road w/thin Tentative Tract No. 13627 to Tuztin Ranch Road; thence
_southe_rly along the_ce .ntertine of Tust/n Ranch Road within Tentative
_Tra~ .No. 12,870. ~ Irvine_Bo_uleva.rd, thence easterly along the .
cen~rrune o~ sa~d Irvine Bou.lev~d to Sand Canyon Avenue; thence"
southerly along the centerline of said Sand Canyon A~venue to the
o. o. la.
p p0sea realiEnment of said Trabuco Road to the proposed northerly
extendon of Mu/rland~ Bo~evard; thence along s~ud Muirlands
tah,Bou~vard to the centerline of Alton Aw_m~ tho,~,~ ,^,,ho.t~. ~^~.
~ong ~ne centerbne of sa/d Jeronimo Road to Bake Parkway; thence
n. ortherl? along the cen_terllne of_ said Bake Parkway to Traebco Road;
t__hem-e e_asterly a/ong the centerline of sa/d Trabuco Road to lmpressa
oan~a ~arganca rarwwa~, thence easterly along the centerlin~ of said
San~ .M_ _argarita_.Par _~.ay to the rroposed _Antonio rarkway as shc~n
on .sa~.d. Mas~e_ r ~l_a~ of Arterial HJghwa_ys; theace southerly along r. he
cen.,t~.hn~, of. sai.d Ant?nio ?arkway to Ortega Highway; thence
sour~uw ,e~l? ~ong .the .cente_rl_ine of said Ortega Highway to the
~.ro .p0sea_.east?l.y .ext:e..n~...o.n. of Aver~. Parkway as shown on said
ma~ rlan. oz~al ~Lt_ghways; thence westerly along the
,~.u~_ue~,,ne ox said pro..l~.sed exte~on and Avery Parkway to the Samta
r oo~m~.a.~ern aha rue oan Joaqum Iqil{~ AOBs; thence
_,~eSu .~,~un~. ~ un.e; ~ence no~..nerr~ _along the Orange County line ~o
w, nere z~ m~~ the__c_enterline of the proposed La Palina Avenue as
shown on sa~a/v{.aster Plan ot' A.rterial Highways.
Zone B is described by the total Foothil_lfEastern Area of Benefit
excluding Zone A as de~ above.
In order to establish a corridor fee, it is necessary to determ;ne who is to
pay the fee, ~e facility cost t9. be sup .poFted by fees and a basis or unit of
~_e_ .as'~t~_ ,.or.~ne.f.ees..As h.as been_pr..e~.o, usly stated, it is proposed that
ees oe l~a oy m..rare aeve_lopment wlth, n the defined Areas of Benefit in
reasonable ~opo_rti'on.to.the _benefit derived._ The corridor facilities wi/1. of
~urse,? ?,nefit .ex~.~ d _e~e_lopment with~j the Areas of Benefit. The
s, nar,e oz cor?aor cos~ a~b .utable to benefits _derived by existing
aevelopmeng is proposed to be funded from other sources.
A. Determ{nmtion of Fee Program's Share of Corridor Cost
The ~rst step in calculating the fee program share of the corridor cc~t
was to determine the percentage of corridor user trip ends that
originate or end within the Area of Benefit which are attributable to
ne~_~{~ro~h Trip in_formation derived from the SOCCS travel demand
_mod[ w_as used for this analysis. T]~iz percentage was established as
the developers share and multiplied by the total corridor cost to
determine the fee program share of costs as shown in Table VIII-1.
The fee program share of corridor cost was then separated into
amounts representing direct and indirect benefits to the benefit zones
(.A & B Zones) based upon peak hour and non-pea~ hour travel
characteristics. Appro:dmately sixty-one percent:~ (61%) of corridor
trips are e. xpected to occur during non-poak travel hours, thus
.represe.ntmg_a m.e. asure, of the diregt~ benefit from the corridors.
Appro~m. ately th_,uty-mne perce_nt~ of corridor trips are expected to
occur dunng peak hours of t. ravel, thus representing lessened
~' Caltrans, LARTS 1976 Urban Rural Survey.
-16-
congestion on the remaining transportation system. This system relief
is defined as indirect benefit.
~he ~'.d~, t .and in.d.ire~, fa .c~? were used to id.entify the relative
r~_n_e_n_~_~e_t~_ ~n t.h.e A a~.d B zo.n.~...The port~on _of' fee program share
~ ~pr~.~n~u~.~ect ~enen~ was cLtv~de~l betw .een the A and Bzones
~a~_a~ a upon_the per.c.entag, e.of ~rridor ~ trips due to growth within
L_ca~z?ne. '~.ne. ~ .l~r~?on..oz.aevelopers share represent/ng indirect
oenen~ was m~nou~ea vetween the A and B zones based upon the
percentage of total triv ends on the transportation system witM,~ each
zone. The fees for the'A and B Zones, therefore, include a measure of
both direct and indirect benefits received by each zone. Exhibits VII
and VILI show the method in wMch these calculations were made.
The fee program share of the original estimate of Corridor Cost shown
below represents an estimate of the share attributable to new
development, It is expected that th~.~ share may change as future
revisions are m~de to the fees.
FEE PROGRAM SHARE OF CORRIDOR COST
Total Corridor Developers
Costs ($) Share (%) Share ($)
Be
Zone A 28.6% $ 97,856,775
Zone B ~ $ 67.643,330
F/ETC
Zone A
Zone B
$341,660,000 48.4%
Total $516,147,000
Determination of' Base F.ee
$165,500,105
25.8% $133,096,099
~ $117,131.975
48.5% $250,228,066
The cost attributable to future development must be reduced to a fee
~ that.it rn~y be apportioned in an equitable manner to specific types
ot development. Allocation of the cost on the basis of trip end
generation by general land use category is proposed, where:
cosk~ .... ' . _ _ developrr~mt, in the AOB zon~ =
cosgtnp end trip end growth in the AOB zone
-17-
~one A
~ F/ET~
$97,856.774 = $74trE
1,321,160
Zone B $6 7, 643 .3 3~ ~
1,462,093 '
$133.096.091
i;665,92~ = $80FI'E
S117.131,975 = $4,3FI'E
2,730,730
~ in~?~p?t.~g tl~. e_.av~age .cog ~ ~p end ~e
~ ,~_ __,_ , ~ ~m~ ~ ~~ ~ ~p end gen~a~on racers ~d
~ en ~.~e ~~e S~ Joa~ ~ ~d F~~
ma~~~~~ H~r space w~ genera~ ~m ~S H~
emplo~t p~j~io~
C. FEE DILUTION
eous .~nd uy.~es wi.'th~ th_e Area of Benet~t have been grouped into
~ma_J?r, ca~. gones ?r t__he p_urposes of distmibuting fees to
~ ~.u~.ae. ve~.op_mem.? .Th.e..three general _categories used include
~n~a~ su~g~e-fami~.y, tiw.eih,~I unita, residential multi-unit
awe ~, aha non-res~dentxal d uses. The trip ends calculated for
the non-residential land use category were a sununation of more
specific non-residential categories such as manufacturing, retail
.onal, n~i.'.ghbor, hood/co_mmunity commercial, and office uses. The
generataon rates used to calculate the trip ends for each of th~.e
more specific non-residential land uses were averages of' rates shown
Prior to the summation of the trip ends from each of the more specific
non-residential land uses, an adjustment was made to the projected
atr~.p e.nds for neighborhood/community commercial land uses. This
ajuscmen~ was an attempt to reflect the benefits to residential land
uses which accrue from construction of neighborhood/community
c°.mm .e~i, ',al dev_el°pment- Neighbgrhood/community commercial
p~m~rny venefits local residents by providing an opportunity to sho,~
close to home..M .andy of. the trip enc~ typically assigned to local retail
~_u~e. s a~..a~coun.c~z, zor by these sho. rt trips arriving from and
recurn,ng ~o remaences. These resxdential-related trip ends actually
provide savings in travel costs due to the short nature of the trip.
Additionally, neighborhcod/commtmity commercial developmen, t tends
to reduce energy consumption and traffic impacts.
~," ~Employment projections adopted by the Orange County
lransportation Commission_
Residential land uses receive suffic/en: bene/it from construction of
nei.ghbor_h .o~community com~nercial ?.evelooment to distribute a
portion o.f the trip ends attributable to neigh[mrhood/community
commercml development to res/dent/al land uses. For this mason,
60% of the trip enc[s attributable to neighborhood/community _
~o_ ~mme .r~/.~al d.?elop?e~n.t ,were.r~gr~ed to single f-mi!y residential
nc mulu.um~ res~aen~m~ lana u_~es az a ~e of this increased
benefit.
mT'ht~eas..s~e.d,tri.p' e?,ds w_ere sp_t/t be,'~reen single family and
u-um~ resaaenuai land uses based upon their respective trip ends
due to growth. The adjusted trip ends are as follows:
Land Use Cate_~or~
ADJUSTED AOB TRIP ~'DS
Zone A
Generated Adjusted
Zone B
Generated Adjusted
SAN JOAQUIN ~ TRANSPORTATION CORRIIX)R
_S_ingle Family Resident/al Units 379,452 557,635 139,368
Multi-Unit Res/dent'ial Unit 193,956 285,053 240,723
Neighborhood/Community Commercial 448,800 179,520 525.262
FOO~TERN TRANSPORTATION CORPJIK)RS
mu~tle Family Resident/al 666,024 897.q60
i-Unit Residential Units 160,377 216.238
Neighborhood/Commun/ty Cornmerc/al 479,662 191,865 1,155,638 462.255
Onc.e.this adjustment was made, the fee program share of the total
.comdor. cc~ for ea.ch of the three gener-.I/x~ land use categories was
aetermme~ The smgle-f, mily resid~~ and multi-trait residential
share of the corridor cost was calc~,I~tecl first by multiplying the
djusted trip ends shown above by the appropriate cost per trip end as
eveloped in E-bib_its IX and X. The no~-res/dential share of the
corridor cost was calculated by using the difference between the total
npro~ share and the total res/den'/al share of' the corridor cost.
e fee program share of corridor co~t by general/zed categories is:
254,936
440,312
210,105
643,812 1,143,880
248,906 442221
TABLe.
FEE PROGRAM SHARE BY LAND USE CATEGORY
e Family Multi-Unit Total
sident~_l_ Residentid Non-ResidentiM
~ JOAQUIN HTr,r~ TRANSPORTATION CORlq:FDOR
Zone A
Zone B ~1~,264,990 $21,093,922 ~35,49V,862
,727,056 $20254~352 $35,661,922
FO~ TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
Zone A
Zone B
Developer's Share
97,856,774
67,643,330
$71,836,800
$49,186,840
$17299,040
$19,015,503
I43,960,251
48,929,632
$133,096,091
$117,131,975
Once the fee program share of corridor cost by the three generalized
land .use categories was deter~{,ed, a fee for each of these categories
was.de--ed by dividing each share by the appropriate number of
r~e~de~.tial, u.~i_'ts or areas ofbuildi~gs, shown in Ex'bits IX and X.
rouowmg ~s the ~inal fee calculation for each of the three general land
use categories for both A and B fee zones.
-20-
~ Calculation
SAN JOAQIfIN IglT.T~ TRANSPORTATION COKRIDOR
Single-family $41,264,990 + 31,621 u,~{ts $1,305Amit
Multi-unit $21,093,922 + 27,708 units $76~t
Non-residential $35,497,862 + 20,021,185 sf SL77/sf
Single family $11,727,056 + 11,614 units
Multi-unit $20~254,352 + 34,389 units
Non-residential $35,661,92~ + 27,700,559 si'
AREA OF BENEFIT FEES
$1,305/unit
$760/unit
$1.75/sf
$1,010/,,nit $1,010/unit
$S89~t $590/u-it
·
$129/sf $1.30/sf
Current
$1372/unit
$799/,,nit
$1.84/sf
$1062/un~t
$620^,n~t
$1.36/sf
Fee
Calcu/ation O~
FOOTHIL~ TRANSPORTATION CO~R
Multi-unit
Non-residential
Multi-unit
Non-residential
$71,836,800 + 55,502 nnit~
$17~299,040 + 22,911 ,,n~ts $755/u~t
$43,960,251 + 24231,767 sf SL8L'sf
Rounded
Fee
Current
Fe~
$1,294/unit $1,295/unit $1360/unit
$755/,,-it
$1.80/sf $1.89/sf
·
$92(}/unit $967/unit
$535/unit $563/unit
$1.05/sf $1.10/sf
$49,186,840 + 53,651 unitz $917/unit
$19,015,503 + 35,558 ,,-~s $.535Amit
$48,929,632 + 46,616,669 fees $1.05/sf
-21-
D. APPLICATION OF FEES
.When development fees are.collected at the t/me of building perrnil;
msuance, the number of residential tmifa or area of' non-residential
_b_~uii__d~_?_, ,will be ,.k~. ~..Th, e fees ,for each d .evelopment will simply be
c~ucma, ma oy m.~u.P½ ,y~n, g ?,.e nu~..oer o[re~dential uni~ or gross floor
~are. a oz non-, .re~. ce, n~a~ otm_am~ times the appropriate land use
~egor7 ann r, ne tee zone. ~ross floor area shall be de6ned as total
floor area includin~ each floor of mu/tip, le _stor~ buildings within the
outer foo~rint of t~e buil~ a~ described on the builcF~ng permit.
Adjustments will not be made to tra/~c generation rates to reflect
anomalies due to project design or other cond/t/ons. All land uses ~
be de---ed to be .within the most appropriate of the three general
l~nd use categories. '
In the event an ex/sting non-residential bufldlng is proposed to be ,
expanded, the fee will be determined by the net increase of building
area. If a non-residential bu/lding is convert~ to another
non-residential use with no net increase in building area, no fees shall
be required. Parldng structures shall also be exempt from payment of
fees s/rice they do not generate a vehicu/ar attraction in and of
themselve~
The following ca .~ories which receive exemptions from payment
.property taxes ' aJso be ?,nerally exempt from paying
transportation corridor fees. (1) Churc~ (2) Religious; (3) College;
(4) WeLfare; (5) Wholly Exempt; (6) Oth~. The/[nal determination of
whether a property is exempt will be based upon verification of a
property,tax exemption for those
_ spec/~ed categories on the latest
Assessor s roll as defined for Orange County by the State of Califor-cda.
oGOf ~eeern. me~. t-owned f_acil/t.ies _or utilities shaIl _be exempt from payment
s to the extent .th. at the facilities will not be used/'or generating
r.evenu_e- or comruerc~al purposes. Examples of exempt public uses are
a..~..halJs, .p_.ark b_uild/ngs, an_d other public build/ngs. Privately owned
utilities will not be exempt from payment of corridor fees.
Not~. 'ths. ta.n_di~..g property tax exemptions, governmental-owned or
co _nstru~ facilit/es (including but not l{-~;ted to counties, citie-~ s,~
edevelopment agencies) which will generate revenue or be leased for
commercial purposes shallpay fees in accordance with the established
fee schedu1,~. Examples o/this include the revenue generating
portions of airports, train stations, stadiums, sports arenas,
convention centers, bus terminals, hotels, or concessions on public
lands. In the event construction of these fac/lities is an e_xpansion of
an existing use, the fee shall be determined based upon the net
increase of building area.
All disputes over application of fees to sped/lc projects or disputes
ove_r exemptions of projects from fee requirements shall be presented
-22-
Examples of fee caJcula tions:
o °
The fee for a development cond~in/of 100 single-family
detached units, 300 condo units and 25,000 s.E of'offi~ and
Ne/ghborhood Shopping Center use~, ca/cu~ated upon orig/nal
rates, would be:
~an Joaquln Bills AOB fZone
(100 D.U. x $130~D.U.)
(300 D.U. x $760/D.U.)
(25,000 $.F. x $1.75 $.F.)
Total fee for deveIopment if
located in Zone A ofSJ'H]~ AOB
Foot~_a__~ern AOB (Zone B):
130,500
228,000
®
(100 D.U. x 920/D.U.)
(300 D.U. x $535/D.U.)
(25,000 S.F. x $1.05/S.F.)
92,000
160,500
Total fee for development if
located in Zone B of Foothill/
Eastern AOB
Total fee for reconstruction of a 10,000 s.£. office buildl.g to a
15,000 s.f. Neighborhood Shopping Center would be calculated
a~ follows:
San Joaqul- lqiIt~ AOB (Zone B):
(5,000 s.t x $1.30/s.f.)
= $ 6,500
Total fee for devel~ment if
located in Zone A
SJHTC AOB = $
Foothill/E~~ AOB (Zone
6.500
(5,000 s.f. x $1.80/s~'.)
Total fee for development if
located in Zone A of FoothilV
Eastern AOB
DEFERRAL OF FEES
= $ 9,000
Fee? may be deferred by t.he Parties for residential multi-~nit rental
projects or projects which include State or Federal reqtu~ments to
pm,vi.'de .units affordable to families with incomes less80% of the ·
_me<uan m_come (Section VIII ]:wu.~/n~). The deferral may be for a
live ...... ~' - ~ i~- ~ of
years from the msuance o/' building permits or the per/od of the
State/Federal fun_ding requirements begi~ulmn issuance of the fir~
building permit. The fees to be paid shall be those in effect at the time of
pay~nent and shall be secured by an agreement and renewable letter of
credit held by an escrow company, or cash or time certi~cate of deposit in
the amount of fees plus 15 percent in anticipation of in/lationary increz_~es.
CRITERIA FOR COLI.ECTION OF ~
~t~.e enabling ordinan .c? provides for collection of fees as a condition of
map approval or xssuance of buildin~ oermit~ Fees sh~ 11
commer_cialfmduztri _al structures which estabti~h new and enlarged
space. Fees will not be required for remode~-~ or-~--~+----:--~ ----~'~
?_-, ~u~ .~ ?. ~..e..same numver o! resxdent~al dwelling units or eoual
commercial building area. Fees will not be required ~'or const~u-c~ion of
re~$ walls, patio covers, swimming pools or other non-inhabitable
residentz~ structures. '
DEVELOP~ k~ACTIONS & CREDIT~_
or co ao.
~.. ~ ~a~ sna~ ~ r~ by ~n~on of aonrowl ~r
~u~ or ~~ P~z~ ~ a~mp~h ~e ~oHo~ ~
1. ~~ ~h~f-way ~ ac~rd~ ~ ~hem~c plans approv~ by
~e appH~'ble ~en~.
2. G~de ~d~ ~ght~f-way ~ a~~~ ~ ~hematic plans
9pp~v~ by ~e appHcable ~en~ ~d sho~ on the Ten~tive Tract
Map ~d ~h ~a~g pl~.
3. ~~~ ~~ over~~~for ~~~ ~a~ as
by ~e appH~ble ~en~. Wi, _ ofove~~g ~ct~e (i.e.,
n~~ of ~avel l~es) is ~ ~ de~ip~ b~ upon ve~c~ar ~d
~~~ ~c genera~ by the p~~ proj~t.
4. ~~ ~dor ~avel l~es ~d ~~h~ge r~ps r~uired
im~a~ly for a~ ~ p~~ development or sys~m cont~~
(clue or sho~ gaps) ~ a~ordan~ ~th the condor const~ction '
~h~ ~~dop~ by ~e applicable ~en~, or as othe~se
pp~v~oy ~e applicable ~en~. N~ of l~es r~ed ~ to be
b~ u~n tr~c genera~ by pro~~
5. P~i~pa~, ~ong oth~ ded~a~ ~ne~d~, in the San Joaq~
~ or F~t~~m ~~~~on ~tor f~ pro~a~
Su~~ion ~ w~ch ~gh~f-way, ~~g ~d ~provemen~ are
~~ for the ~a~~tion co~dors ~ ~ eH~ble for cre~t ~w~
pa~ent of ~e ~&B f~s ~ the e~nt ~at the ~ were included ~
devdopment of ~e f~ pm~a~ Except when ~he~~ prodded by ~
a~ment en~ ~ by a P~y prior ~ the eff~ive da~ 0f t~s Fi~t
~end~ and ~~ ~~ment, whenever ~b~ion approvals a~
~n~tion~ u~n r~emen~ ~ ~ade or ~pmve ~ions of
transportation corridors or dedicate right-of-way in excess of Major
Arterial Highway Standards, and these costs exceed fees that would
otherwise be due, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the
applicable Agency .and count~_or applicable city prior to recordation of
final tract or parcel maps to ~dentify the difference in the dollar amount
b.e .t~.ee.n the ~ted cos_ts of the grading, improvements, and/or ~
ngn~'o.z'w.ay,.a~.d the calculated fee~. Such agreements will estabhsh the
amoun~ o, ream _m~-sement for wkich the developer is entitled. A developer
~]~e~l be, en,ti,tle~l, to rel .mh~.ursement ~ acc_eptance of'mprovements by
applkame ,~'ency ~ tho extent major thoroughfare ~nd bridge fee~
~re av~ihble for relmhursement ~ satisfaction of all other oMigatio~
of the applicable .-~ency for which major thoroughfare ~nd bridge fees are
req~ ~t~£~ction oF s~ch relmhu~sement oMigat~ons, however, i~ the
· ~ uer~ve~ ~rom .~e~men~ ~~c~ or Mello4~s Commmzi~y ~aciht~e~
District bon~ shxl] be made to such d~t~ct~ in a m~n~er which
reduce the zmou~t of' s~ch bonds in proportion to the re~mhu_~ement
~ayment made by Agency. Except for the in~tial issuance and sale of
oonds by Agency~ repayment of all existing reimhur~ment agreement
ob.l!.g.ati.ons~oy Agency shall be funded by _any subsequent bond issue and
sa~..~ecl upon receipt ofbond proc~ds. If the es_~m~ted costs of the
g., Sht of,,ar
ca~ar~ me, a aeveloper rn~v relincmish credits in
prior to issuance of building permits.
In the event a development not requiring subdivision is conditioned to
co .n..................struct or grade portions of the transportation corridors or dedicate
.right-of-way, relrnhursement agreements shall be executed prior to
msuance of any lrv. ilding permits within the project boundaries.
Developers ~ b~..~1, ow_ed to apply credits earned on one project to
another pro~ec~,w~th,n ???. ,sawn. e_Area of Bene/it owned by the same
developer. In ne even~ ti~;le to the land of a project changes, credits can
.~aO~,.tr~a~..erred _to another d. evel_oper with the title to the land uvon written
ca.~o.n .t~. the .appropriate legislative body and applicable .Agency that
ar~ W the rmmo~ment agreement. Credits will otherwise be
non-tran~erable t~om one-developer to another. Credits can be used for
og~~~~ of reducing, fee~. prior_to completion and acceptance of
mni[, unpro.vex~enr~ or right-of-way dedication However, except as
el'm~., prov~decl herein, no reimbursements shall be made until all
eng, u~, .l~v,ements or ,d .e~li.'ca_tion are completed an_d accepted by the
cy aha tunas are available for reimhursement as determined hv tho
ellcy.
The guidelines for deten:nination of fee credits are a.s follows:
1. General
m t .fo~. right-of-wa.~g dedicatio_n, gr_ading, and other improvements
y oe given to ~ue extent that the cost of such right-of-way or
-25-
improvements are included i.n the calculation of fees in the Major
Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee ProgrAm
2. Right-of. Way
3.
Credit will be ~iven for right-of-way dedication at ihe rate of $50,000
per acre adjus~t in accordance with the California Construction Cost
Index, or corn .p~.able, index selected by. the Board, currently $52,546
per a,c?, excep~ mr slope easements and a 120-foot-wide strip, along
center, l,~_e of the tr~rtation ~rridor which would normally be
required for arterial highway dedication.
Grading
fbo~t will be ~iven for'earthwork, road and slope drainage,
_ttres.s~, _s~_abilization, hydroseedin~ and erosion control at the
owin~ combined rates:
SAN JOAQUIN HII.I.S TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Corridor ~en_t
Original/Current
Credit Rat~
Jamboree to Station 511+50 $149,784/$157,410 per acre
road easement
Station 511+50 to Moulton Parkway $124,132/$130,452 per acre
road easement
Moulton Parkway to Paseo de Colinas $124,91~$131,275 per acre
road easement
FO~.T.~,A~'i~R.N TRANSPORTATION CORKIDOR
Foothill/Eastern Corridor
$137,060/$144,038 per acre
road easement
The term road easement as used above 'includes the entire area within
right-of-way (hinge point to hinge point) excluding slope and drainage
eas~n, en.ts. The credit values furthermore include percentages or
.work est.., te~. for engineering, aclmln£stration anc] contingencies for
u~e respecuve ~ran.sportation corridors.
4. Drainage
Credit will be given for drainage structures in accordance
for
as-lmilt c~ures which the Director, EMA or his designee determine
are reasonable equivalents of the structures in the fee program cost
estimate. Unit prices for as-built drainage strudares will be those
a~U~_._~_.the.!atest f,ee. pr_og!'_am _co. st e:s_ timbre. Engineering and
~un~~lon credi~ of 15% of the dr2ina~e structure credit will ~,
adde~ Contingency credit of 10% of the d[-ainage structur~re" ~t'~-ill
f~a a_dded. Terrace drains, downdrains and temporary drainage
cilities or erosion control facilities are included in the average unit
cost of ~radin~.
-26-
5. Other Improvements
.Credit will be given for other improvements ~t, the rate a~ which the
e,t_
smeerm~ aha aannms~ration plus 10% for contingencies.
'l~ne crecti~ rates specUied above will be revised whenever tl~e corriclor
c_.~..,~a_~t~?~,~ for the p .tuTpo~. of adjusting fees. Once fee
~.:~-~ _-~_. _ ~e~xaous. nea.~y, an ex.ecutec[, reimb~ment agreement, no
· ,_~'Au~ aa..J)~men~s ..win ve m~_de to those credits because of revisions
~o ~ne cornaor cost estimates or fee adjustments.
ANNLTAI. FEE ADJUSTMEN~
It iz i~tended, that annually the fee program~ be automatically adjusted by
the _Agencies m accordance with the California Construction Cost Index,
or other comparable index selected by the Board, and further adjusted by
.the Agencies to _reflect updated project cost estimates, substantial changes
tn general plan la~d use elements, or other pertinent information. '
In the event an axmu~ evaluation of the fee_progran~ causes fees to be
reduced for any r~ason, relmhursement.s will not be considered for fees
already paid.
JOINT POWERS AGEN~
~The? .a.?.~ diffe_rent cities within the proposed Areas of Benefit for
ha~-~~~_ ~en~_e?~t .~genc~es ) ~as. izt4ng of. City and County Parties
t2~l~;l'~l~g the ~ Joaqxl.l~ .~-]'lll~ 8.1~d Football a~d E~~
e~~ ~th the ~en~es for ~ch p~~s. ~e ~en~es ~
~_~~ble for ~.~g f~s ~ff~ ~der this f~ pro,am
mc~u~g ~y ~~ ~mb~men~ c~ for ~ re~b~ment .'
a~men~ iden~~ ~ ~on ~ of ~ re~.
w1'*/42
~P
-27-
I
%
-28-
·
,4
6
7
$
9
10
11
12
14
18
19
20
21
24
ErltlllII II
R~SOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUP£.~V~SORS OF
ORANGE COUNTY ~ CALI FORN IA
April 21, 1982
.On motion of Superv~sor-Wieder, duly seco~ed and carried, the
following Resolut:ion was adopted:
WHE~S, develoFment of lands ks occurring which contributes
directly to the need for transportation corridors;' and
W~EREAS, sa~d developmen~ may obstruct future righ=-of-way, for
the t.ransportation corridors; and
WHEREAS, development benefitt/ng f=om implementa~/on of the
transportat/on corridors should contribute toward the cost generali~
in proportion to t. he need generated~ and
WHEREAS, r~ght-of-way for the trans~ortation should be
as ~evelopmen~ occurs; and
~S, grading should be accomplished, whenever possible, in
conjunction with the grading and develo~-~e_-t of surrounding
and
WHEREAS, imple--.en~a=ion of logical ~nc=ements of the corridor
should occur in conjuncl:~on w~ t~e la.~d developmen~ l~rocess
the transportation needs of thal: develor----~enl: require those fac~
for access; and
WHEREAS, developmenl: policies for t--%e implementation of thc
1Lranspor~a~ion corridor w~11 provide a b~s£s for p~ann~ng of future
development and serve as not:ice 1:o the l~ubl:~c as to the future
locations of t~e corridors;
llesolut:/on No. 82-S98
Trlnspor~a trion Corridors
Development: Polt. cT
-29-
NOW,
BE ZT R£~OLVED t as · condition of
o! subdivisions containing within their boundaries portions o£
transportation corridors sh~n on the Trans~rtat~on Eleme'~: Of the
~O~ty ~eneral Plan ~e ~eveloper shall:
1. DeC,cate rSght-of~ay to Co~ty. .
2. Gra~e corridor r~gh~f-way ~n ac~r~ance.w~
plans ap~rove~ on ~e rent,ye ~p ~ roug~ gra~ang plans approve,
3. Cons~c~ ~er~al overcross~ngs for ~nternal arrivals.
W=d~ of overcross~ng ~ct~e (~.e., n~er of ~avel lanes) is tc
be dete~ne~ base~.~n vehicular an~ ~e~es~i~ traffic g~nerated
by ~e ~rO~sed ~ro3ect'
13 .4. Construct corridor travel lanes and interchange ra~ps
.... ,: 14 requ.~r..~ immediately for access to prO~sed development or system
.~ 15 ~n~nulty (closur~ of shor~ gaps). N~er of lanes requ~r~ .~s ~o
=: 17 S. ~art~c~pate, ~ng o~er designated beneficiaries, in any
18 establish~ corridor ~evelo~=ent fee ~rog=~. Costs incurre~ pursua:
19
20
21
22
=c~Conditions 2 through 4 shall be creditable against fees. Costs
~ncurred pursuant to Condition 1 shall be creditable agains: fees to
~e exten~ that the ~eveIo~~: fee pro~r~ ~nc~udes said
~ost.
24
; 27
~ 28
BE IT rURTRER R~SOLVED that ~ is hereby d~rected to amen~
a.Dpropr~ate sections of the Subdivision and Zoning Codes to impzemen:
t~s polic~.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that F. MA is hereby directed to i-'.co~-pora:
General Plan amendment e~ements, zoning actions, area p2ans and
s'-'te plans recommendations appropriate for ~mplementing t. his policy.
-30-
·
?
bE : L.k,'~.~ R£$OLYZD that EYA · hereby directed to begin
analyzing ~gten~tal areas of benefit as an adjunct to the Orange Cou
Orange Coun~ Transportation Co~ss~on Trans~rtation F~nance Study
BE IT F~TflER ~SOL~D that affected cLties be requested %o a~c
s~m~lar polic~es.
BE IT FURT~R RESOL~ that F.~ Ls hereby directed ~o proceed
expeditiously with the establishment of & fee program.
I'
19
RAL~ B. CLAP~,
ROGER R.
-31-
l, JIJNE ALEXANDER, Clerk of the '
24 2b, ereby Certtfy ~a ~a~ of $upe~sors f
f~ said ~ard a ~ ~..t~?e a~ fo?goS~ Resolution--. ,.~_ ~~e.C~"?, ~Jfor
_ 2 _, .,~ pass~ ~y e .g f. h~ld 9n the 2~ -d,~'- ~~- ee
aa ~t~to~, ~ have beret- ,., ~ ~--- '~'/_ · -. %:~
~ ~1~ ~.~ _, . .",.:' '
_~. . ~eru gl ~uDe~lcnrs
-2~ e- urange ~unty, Cal~fe~.
"-,.. ~ G~ "'1 · .';~ ....
g r~ m
-32-.
-33-*
:il
.,4
;
o'
.
-34-
-35-
~Co~-r. idor User Trips
__W~_h One or Both En-d_~ In ~one
Trips b~inning and ending in
(Trips due ~o growth)
(Total trips)
In/Out Trips
(Trips due to growth)
(Total trips)
Out/In Tripe
(Trips ~ue to growth)
(Total tri~)
Trip En~ Analysis
(Trip ends due to growth)
(Total %rip ends)
(Percent corridor T~ due %0 growth)1
(Percent corridor users TE by Zone)2
(Percent corridor users TE due to ~r~)3
27,109
29,047
60,145
78,820
57,362
73,274
171,725
;.10,188
81.701
42.88%
35.03%
Zone B
9,811
25,834
35,345
25,141
38,582
65,755
93,549
70.29%
19.08%
13.41%
Ou~s l~e
9,116
22,195
49,798
69,894
50,274
72,203
118,304
186,487
63.44%
38.04%
24.13%
Total Trip ~nds
:~ercent corrider users TZ by ~one - Total t:lp.ends ~er zone
Su~-atioa of tot~l t.:lp ends
corridor ~sers ~: due to growth - Percent ~ due t~) growth x
percent cocr~doc users
-36-
-37
Corridor User Tri 8 Wi~h One or Both Ends In Zone
T~.Ips b~ginnlng and ending in zone
(Trips due to growth)
(Total ~rlps}
In/Out Trips
(Trips due to grouch)
(Total trips)
Ov-~a Trips
(Trips due to growth)
(T~ta/ trips)
T.~ip End Analysis
(Trip ends due to growth)
(Total trip ends)
(Perc~at corridor TM due to growth)
(Percent corridor users TE by Zone)2
(Percent corridor ~sers TZ due to growth)
~-on e__..._..~X ~x~ne B
Outside
27,922 9,322 20,555
28,200 11,657 37,307
68 , 629 31,320 64,217
80,763 46,004 88,512
75,449 33,648 55,069
89,823 45,760 79,696
199,92/ 83,612 160,396
226,986 115,078 242,822
88.08% 72.66% 66.05%
35.18% 19.68% 41.52%
34.18% 14.30% 27.42~
1percent corridor T~ du~ to growth - _trip ends du~ ~ ~rm~h
~1 Trip ~
:Per~nt ~rrid~r users ~ ~ ~ne - _T,o~ trip e~ ~r ~ne
s~tl~n of tct~ ~ip ends
3P~nt ~rridor ~ers ~ due ~ gr~ - Percent ~ d'~ ~ graph x
~r~nt ~rri~r ~ers ~ by ~ne
-38-
.%
EX~IB IT XX
Page 1 of 2
DA/LY VE~ICLE TR/P GEN~2ATION ~ATF. S
0~GZ (I)UNTY h~NVI~ KANA~ AG~'~CY
August 1~82
.'he following is a llst~ of vehicle trip generat/on rates use~ for planning
purposes ~ ~e Znvir~n~l ~age~n~ ~en~. These rates ~ve ~en ~pil~
fr~ a variety of ~~, in~ing ~un~ ~du~ st~les, ~ are dee~d
tepresen~ti~ of ~d ~es ~ln 0r~ge ~~. '~f" Is ~ ~brevia~lon
for :rip ~ ~ ~us~ e~are feet of gr~s bu~d~ag flor ~ea. "~/Acre'
tefera ~ ~p ~ ~r ~1~ acre.
Land Use
T~-/Xsf TE/lcr e T"Z/Other
Light Industrial/Industrial Park
War ehous ·
Single Family Dttache~
Single F~mlly D~tache~-Estate
Multiple Unit (Apartments, Condos)
Mobile ~x~e
Retire~_nt Community
Botel
Motel
Resort ~otel (T~C Use)
Neighborhood Park
.Regional Park
State Park
Marina
~each
Golf Course
Campground
Tennis Club
Ragu e tba/.1 Club
Elementar7 School
Junior High School
~igh School
Junioc College
Church - We. kday
Church- Sunday
Library
26
19 -
44
300
47
80
8O
60
13S
310
12 TE/Du
15 ~E/Ou
? TE/Ou
5 TE/Ou
4 TE/Du
18 TE/~oom
350 TE/1000' Shore
5 TE/Campsite
43 TE/Cour t
31 TE/Cour t
1.0 TE/Student
0.9 TE/Student
1.4 TE/S tudent
1.5 TE/S tudent
-42-
·
~IgIT X!
Land Use
T~/~sf T~/A=r e TE/Other
Nursing Hc~e
14
General Off lee
~d ical Office 15
Research Center 75
10
240
40
Discount Store
Sar ~are/l~c~e I~q~rov~=ent 65
Shopping Center - ~o~
( 30 ~es)
S~ing C~er - ~~i~ 70
(1~30
S~i~ Center -
~9ry Tiger, etc.)
R~~t - ~i~ ~~r (ie., ~'s, 350
~y's, etc.)
~s~ur~t . F~t F~ (i.e., ~~~'s, 900
~l's ~r., e~c.}
A~bile
~~nten~ ~ket (i.e., 7-~, 550
~ & ~, e~c.)
S50
500
900
1250
4OO
75 o TE/S t.a t ion
BAnk - Wa/k In
Bank - Drive In
Savings and Loan - Walk In
Savings and Loan - Drive In
1BO
65
75
~: 6e s DT20-22
-43-
AJ:~A Of' BI:I~.FIT
I,,~EX UAP ·
WITH C~TT BOCI~A,R~$
SJ~I dOAOLIN 14LLS
FOOTFaLL/EASTERN
TR.L~SP~ T ATK)H CORRID¢~ S
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on December 4, 1989, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. the City Council of the City of
(the 'City') will conduct a public hearing to consider an increase in the collection of fees (the 'Development Fees')
pursuant to the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and
Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor (the 'Fee Program'). DEVELOPMENT FEES ONLY APPLY TO NEW
DEVELOPMENT. EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE
PROPOSED FEE INCREASE.
The increased Development Fees will be collected within the area of benefit (the 'Areas of Benefit') shown on
map contained in this notice. The estimated cost of the improvements to be constructed pursuant to the Fee Program
for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor, excluding financing costs associated with such construction is $1,500
million dollars ($1,500,000,000). The Fee Program is designed to apportion the Development Fees within the Area of
Benefit based on the trip ends generated by new development, as determined by the trip generation tables included in
the Fee Program, which shall be assessed upon new development based upon the number of dwelling units included in
the development (for residential projects) or the gross square footage of the development (for non-residential projects~.
The proposed new fee amounts are as follows:
Single Family Dwelling Unit
Multiple Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
Zone A Zone B
$2327/unit $1655/unit
$1359/unit $ 963/unit
$3.23/sf $1.88/sf
For information regarding the foregoing call (714) 557-9072.
Said hearing will be conducted in the City Council chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California.
Interested persons wishing to express their views will be given an opportunity to do so at the public hearing. Any '
protests to the increase of the Development Fees must, prior to the time of the hearing, be submitted in writing to Mar),
Wynn, City Clerk, City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92680, prior to the close of the public hearing, and m:st
identify the property owned within the Area of Benefit and the size of the property.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN