Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PH 1 BRIDGE FEE PROG 10-10-85
_AGEND DATE: OCTOBER 2, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 10-10-85 Inter- Com TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER PUBLIC HEARING - MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM FOR THE FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS RECOMMENDATION: Pleasure of the City Council. BACKGROUND: The following is a recap of past events related to the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program (M.T. & B.F.P.) for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors: September 3, 1985 September 16, 1985 - September 20, 1985 - September 23 & 24, 1985 - Distribution of draft Ordinance No. 948 adopting the M.T. & B.F.P., draft Resolution No. 85-103 establishing the area of benefit and the M.T. & B.F.P. for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors, draft copy of the Joint Powers Agreement and a copy of the M.T. & B.F.P. Establishment of Thursday, October 10, 1985, as the date of public hearing. Approval of budget supplement in the amount of $6,500 for processing costs. Introduction of Ordinance No. 948. Notices sent by first-class mail to each property owner within the boundary of the proposed area of benefit. Notices posted at arterial highway intersections within the proposed area of benefit. o September 26, 1985 - Notice published in Tustin News. October 10, 1985 - Public hearing at 7:00 p.m. At the September 16, 1985 City Council meeting, staff was directed to set up a meeting with the seven other City members and one County member of the proposed Joint Powers authority to discuss the possibility of modifying the Joint Powers Agreement to allow each member agency the option to waive the corridor fee for developments within a Redevelopment Agency project area. As of this date, October 2, 1985, staff and the Orange County Transportation Commission has not been able to establish a date for this meeting. OCTOBER 1, 1985 PAGE 2 DISCUSSION: One of the attached Resolutions is City Council Resolution No. 85-102 which adopts a Negative Declaration for the proposed area of benefit and Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. The Community Development Department has completed the initial study, processed this Negative Declaration and recommends adoption of this Resolution. This Resolution No. 85-102 must be adopted prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 948 and Resolution No. 85-103. The public hearing has been set for Thursday, October 10, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. It is suggested that the hearing be opened and the City Council proceed with presentation of all testimony from interested individuals. After the City Council has heard all testimony and closed the public hearing, the following actions are available to the Council: Determine to establish an area of benefit for the Foothill/Eastern Corridors unless a majority written protest is filed and not withdrawn. If established by the adoption of Ordinance No. 948, the Council shall adopt Resolution No. 85-103 which describes the boundaries of the area of benefit. Continue action on all items until the meeting with the other members of the Joint Powers authority has been held, and a determination made as to the acceptability of the requested change to the Joint Powers Agreement which would allow member agencies to waive corridor fees within a Redevelopment Agency project area. A member of the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency will be available to respond to any questions pertaining to the M.T. & B.F.P. that may arise. Following is a recap of sequential list of actions that should be followed for this item: 1. Open public hearing 2. Receive testimony 3. Close public hearing If program is adopted: 1. Adoption of Resolution No. 85-102 2. Second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 948 3. Adoption of Resolution No. 85-103 ~Bob Led6ndecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:jr 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 RESOLUTION NO. 85-102 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED AREA OF BENEFIT · AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM The City Council of the City of Tustin, California does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That an initial study questionnaire was done for the proposed Area of Benefit and Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. B. That the proposed Negative Declaration was published in a paper of general circulation. Ce That the public was invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which encompasses between the dates of September 26 to October 3, 1985. That the City Council finds on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. II. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby adopts a Negative Declaration for the proposed Area of Benefit and Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the day of , 1985. Frank H. Greinke Mayor ATTEST: Mary Wynn City Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 201 22 2~ 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 948 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADDING SECTION 2800 TO THE CITY CODE ADOPTING A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66484.3 authorizes the City to require by ordinance the payment of a fee as a condition of approval of a final subdivision map or as a condition of issuing a building permit for the purpose of defraying the cost of constructing major thoroughfares and bridges; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt such a fee program in order to insure that future development shall pay a share of the costs of constructing transportation systems adequate to serve that development. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Tustin hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Section 2800 is hereby added to the City Code to read in its entirety as follows: "Sec. 2800. Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee". A building permit applicant, as a condition of issuance of a building permit, shall pay a fee as hereinafter established to defray the costs of constructing bridges over waterways, railways, freeways and canyons, or constructing major thoroughfares. b. Definitions. (~) The term 'construction' as used in this section includes preliminary studies, design, acquisition of right-of-way, administration of construction contracts, and actual construction. (2) The term 'major thoroughfare' means those roads designated as tranportation corridors and major, primary, secondary, or commuter highways on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The primary purpose of such roads is to carry through traffic and provide a network connecting to the State highways system. (3) 'Bridge facilities' means those locations identified in the transportation or flood control provisions of the Circulation Element or other element of the General Plan as requiring a bridge to span a waterway, a railway, freeway, or canyon. (4) 'Area of Benefit' means a specified area wherein it has been determined that the real property located therein will benefit from the construction of a major thoroughfare or bridge project. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1¢ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 27 28 Ce de ge The provisions herein for payment of a fee shall apply only if the major thoroughfare or bridge, facility has been included in an element of the City's General Plan or the General Plan of the County of Orange adopted at least thirty (30) days prior to the application for a building permit and on land located within the boundaries of the area of benefit. Payment of fees shall not be required unless any major thoroughfares are in addition to, or a widening or reconstruction of, any existing major thoroughfares serving the area at the time of the adoption of the boundaries of the area of benefit. Payment of fees shall not be required unless any planned bridge facility is a new bridge serving the area or an addition to an existing bridge facility serving the area at the time of the adoption of the boundaries of the area of benefit. Action to establish an area of benefit may be initiated by the City Council upon its own motion or upon the recommendation of the Director of Public Works. The City Council shall set a public hearing for each proposed area benefited. Notice of the time and place of said hearing including preliminary information related to the boundaries of the area of benefit, estimated costs and the method of fee apportionment shall be given in the following manner: (1) Notice shall be given at least ten (10) calendar days before the hearing by the following: (a) Notice published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within the proposed area of benefit. (b) Notices with at highway benefit posted throughout the proposed area of benefit least three (3) notices posted at arterial intersections within the proposed area of (c) Notices sent by first-class mail addressed to each property owner within the boundary of the proposed area of benfit. (d) Notices sent by first-class mail to all Municipal Advisory Committees and known Homeowners' Associations within the proposed area of benefit. (e) Notice by first-class mail to any person who has filed a written request therefor with the Director of Public Works. Such request shall apply for the calendar year in which it is filed. (-~) At the public hearing the City Council will consider the testimony, written protests, and other evidence. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council may, unless a majority written protest is filed and not withdrawn 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20' 21 22 23 95 26 27 28 (2) (3) (4) as specified in section g(3), determine to establish an area of benefit. If established, the City Council shall adopt a resolution describing the boundaries of the area of benefit, setting forth the cost, whether actual or estimated, and the method of fee apportionment. A certified copy of such resolution shall be recorded by the City Clerk with the Orange County Recorder's Office. Such apportioned fees shall be applicable to all property within the area of benefit and shall be payable as a condition of issuing a building permit for such property or portions thereof. Where the area of benefit includes lands not subject to the payment of fees pursuant to this section, the City Council shall make provisions of payment of the share of improvement cost apportioned to such lands from other sources. Written protests shall be received by the City Clerk at any time prior to the close of the public hearing. If written protests are filed by the owners of more than one-half of the area of the property to be benefited by the improvement, and sufficient protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the area represented by the protests to less than one-half of the area to be benefited, then the proposed proceedings shall be abandoned, and the City Council shall not, for one year from the filing of said written protests, commence or carry on any proceedings for the same improvement under the provisions of this section. Any protests may be withdrawn by the owner making the same, in writing, at any time prior to the close of the public meeting. If any majority protest is directed against only a portion of the improvement, then all further proceedings under the provisions of this section to construct that portion of the improvement so protested against shall be barred for a period of one year, but the City Council shall not be barred from commencing new proceedings not including any part of the improvement so protested against. Such proceedings shall be commenced by a new notice and public hearing as set forth in subsection (f) above. (5) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the City Council, within such one-year period, from commencing and carrying on new proceedings for the construction of an improvement or portion of the improvements so Protested against if it finds, by the affirmative vote of four-fifths of its members, that the owners of more than one-half of the area of the property to be benefited are in favor of going forward with such improvement or portion thereof. Fees paid pursuant to this section shall be deposited in a planned bridge facility or major thoroughfare fund.' A fund shall be established for each planned bridge facility project or each planned major thoroughfare project. If the area of benefit is one in which more than one bridge or major thoroughfare is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 27 28 required to be constructed, a separate fund may be established covering all of the bridge projects or major thoroughfares in the area of benefit. If the area of benfit encompasses one or more bridges and one or more thoroughfares and all lands within the area of benefit are subject to the same proportionate fee for all bridges and thoroughfares, a single fund may be established to account for fees paid. Moneys in such fund shall be expended solely for the construcion or reimbursement for construction of the improvements serving the area to be benefited and from which the fees comprising the fund were collected, or to reimburse the City for the costs of constructing the improvement. i. The City Council may approve the acceptance of consideration in lieu of the payment of fees established herein. j. The City Council may approve the advancement of money from the General Fund or Road Fund to pay the costs of constructing the improvements covered herein and may reimburse the General Fund or Road Fund for such advances from planned bridge facility or major thoroughfare funds established pursuant to this section. k. If the building permit applicant, as a condition of the issuance of the building permit, is required or desires to construct a bridge or major thoroughfare, the City Council may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the applicant. Such agreement may provide for payments to the applicant from the bridge facility or major thoroughfare funding covering that specific project to reimburse the applicant for costs not allocated to the applicant's property in the resolution establishing the area of benefit. If the bridge or major thoroughfare fund covers more than one project, reimbursements shall be made on a pro rata basis reflecting the actual or estimated costs of the projects covered by the fund." SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a ~egular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the day of , 1985. Frank H. Greinke Mayor ATTEST: Mary Wynn City Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 2~ 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 85-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ESTABLISHING THE AREA OF BENEFIT AND THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM FOR THE FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS WHEREAS, buildout of the land use element of the General Plan of the City of Tustin is dependent upon providing a balanced transportation system to serve the planned level of development; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that implementation of the Foothill and Eastern Transportation Corridors will result in a transportation system which has the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic volume associated with anticipated future development; and WHEREAS, implementaton of the Foothill and Eastern Transportation Corridors will help to relieve congestion oh the existing transportation system; and WHEREAS, future state and federal revenue are projected to be ilnadequate to construct and transportation corridors in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, the City council finds that future development should pay a share of the cost of implementing new transportation corridors to insure that the transportation system will be adequate to serve said development and that this sh~re of the corridor costs should be proportional to the traffic !!generated by the development; and : WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 948 of the City of Tustin provides for Ithe establishment of major thoroughfare and bridge construction fees to be paid by building permit applicants in the City of Tustin; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the possible adoption of the fee program was given to all property owners as provided in Ordinance No. 948; and WHEREAS, the property owners within the area of benefit did not file a majority written protest to the establishment of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Fee Program; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was issued as a result of initial studies prepared to assess the environmental impacts which might be associated with the adoption of the major thoroughfare and bridge fee program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The boundary of the area of benefit shall be as described in the do~~ted July 1985 entitled "Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors" ("Program") iattached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 15 SECTION 2: The estimated cost of these major thoroughfares and bridges are as follows: Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors $516,147,000.00 The Program is presently designed to collect 48.5% of the cost of construction of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors. SECTION 3: The 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 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) in those amounts as set forth in the Area of Benefit Fee Table included in the Program. SECTION 4: An automatic adjustment of the fees, based upon the Construction Cost Index, shall be made each fiscal year commencing in fiscal fear 1986-87. An adjustment of the fee based upon updated project cost estimates or other changed conditions shall be made in lieu of the Annual Cost Index Adjustment when necessary. SECTION 5: The collection of the fee shall be a condition of issuance of a building permit as described in the Program. The payment of fees may be deferred for all residential rental projects or projects which include State or Federal requirements to provide units affordable to families with incomes less than 80% of the median income for those time periods and subject to those terms and conditions set forth in Section IX of the Program. Fee credits shall be granted for dedications and work performed for the corridors as set forth in Section XI of the Program. SECTION 6: In the event the City executes the "Joint Exercise of ("Aqreement"), upon the effective date of said Agreement, the City shall remit. Powers Agreement" Creating the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency ~ll-fees collected pursuant to the Program to the Joint Powers Agencies crea~ed the event the City executes said Agreement, any person aggrieved by a decision by said Agreement pursuant to; the terms and conditions of said Agreement. In of the City regarding the amount of any corridor fee imposed or fee credit lO!igranted may appeal the decision of the City to the Foothill/Eastern 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Transportation Corridor Agency, where appropriate, which decision shall be final. SECTION 7: This Resolution shall be effective upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 948, establishing the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, this day of , 1985. Frank H. Greinke Mayor ATTEST: Mary Wynn City Clerk MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM FOR SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AND FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS PREPARED BY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TRANSPORTATION/FLOOD CONTROL PROGRAM OFFICE JULY 1985 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM FOR SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AND FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS Prepared by Environmental Management Agency Transportation/Flood Control Program Office JULY 1985 SECTION I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X ×I XII XIII TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE Executive Summary Background Description of Corridor Corridor Planning Estimated Costs Overall Financing Area of Benefit Description of Area of Benefit (AOB) Fees Deferral of Fees Criteria for Collection of Fees Development Exactions & Credits Annual Fee Adjustment City Participation in Fee Program PAGE 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 15 21 21 21 24 24 DT20-4 EXMIBIT NO. I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI TABLE NO. IV-1 IV-2 VII-1 VII-2 VIII-1 VIII-2 VIII-3 VIII-4 LIST OF EXHIBITS TITLE PAGE Area of Benefit Index Map with City Boundaries 25 Resolution 82-598, Transportation Corridor 26 Development Policy Area of Influence for Corridor Users, 29 San Joaquin ~ills Transportation Corridor Area of Influence for Corridor Users, 30 Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors Area of Benefit, San Joaquin Mills Transportation Corridor 31 Area of Benefit, Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors 32 Fee Program Share of Total Corridor Cost, SJHTC 33 Fee Program Share of Total Corridor Cost, F/ETC 35 Cost Per Trip End Analysis, SJMTC 37 Cost Per Trip End Analysis, F/ETC 38 Daily Vehicle Trip Generation Rates 39 LIST OF TABLES TITLE San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Cost Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Cost San Joaquin Hills AOB by Local Jurisdiction 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 Fees PAGE 6 7 10 13 ].6 17 18 18 DT20-4 MAJOR ~OROUGHFARE ~qD BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM FOR SAN JOAQUIN HILLS AND FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION COP~RIDORS Executive Summar~ It can no longer be expected that facilities such as the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) and Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors (F/ETC) can be fully funded from the traditional revenue sources used to construct southern California's existing freeway network. Supplemental funding sources must therefore be developed if these important components of Orange County's transportation system are to be. developed to provide relief to existing congested facilities and support orderly development within cities and unincorporated areas. Development fees represent a potential supplemental funding source and as such have been under consideration by the Board of Super~isor.s for some time. The development fee program prepared for Board of Supervisors consideration is based upon Government Code Sections 50029, 66484.3 and California Constitution Article 11, Section 7. The concept is furthermore based on the general principle that future development within prescribed benefit areas will benefit from the construction of the transportation facilities and should pay for them in proportion to projected corridor traffic demand attributable to the development. Future development within the benefit areas is expected to account for 48% of the cost of the SJHTC and F/ETC. The remaining cost of the corridors, representing benefits derived by existing development within the benefit areas and corridor users outside the benefit areas, is proposed to be funded through traditional transportation funding sources such as existing federal and state programs. No assessment of existing developed property is proposed. Corridor usage projections for several hundred traffic analysis zones within the County were developed as a tool to assist in defining the proposed benefit areas. Traffic analysis zones with 4% or more of their total trip making utilizing the corridor formed a fairly dense pattern. Identifiable physical features closely approximating the pattern were used to describe the bound- aries of the benefit areas. Two fee zones within each area of benefit were established based upon direct use of the corridors. Traffic analysis zones with 8% or more of their total trip making utilizing the corridor were defined in the higher fee zone (A). The remainder of the zones were defined in the lower fee zone (B). Assessment of fees on a traffic related basis was determined to be equitable. Trip ends were selected as the least common denominator and fees were established by dividing the proportion of corridor cost attributable to each fee zone by the total number of projected daily trip ends within each fee zone. Adjustments were made to trip ends between neighborhood commercial and residential land uses to reflect the relative benefit of neighborhood commercial development to residences. Land uses were combined into three general land use categories (2 residential and 1 non-residential) for the purposes of applying fees to development projects. -1- Fees for each of the fee zones within the areas of benefit are: SJ~TC Single Family Multi-Unit Residential Residential Non-Residential Zone A $1,305/unit $760/unit $1.75/sf. Zone B $1,010/unit $590/unit $1.30/sf. F/ETC Zone A $1,295/unit $755/unit $1.80/sf. Zone 3 $ 920/unit $535/unit $1.05/sf. Developers who are required to construct portions of the transportation corridors will receive credit for that work toward the payment of their fees. The amount of credit will not be adjusted with subsequent revisions to the fee program once it is memorialized by agreement. This credit may be transferred to another landowner within the same area of benefit only with the change in title to the land. Payment of fees for residential multi-unit rental projects may be deferred for a period of 5 years from issuance of a building permit. The developer must enter into an agreement to pay the fee in effect at the time payment is due and provide a security in the amount of the fee plus 15%. Properties which are exempt from payment of property taxes will generally be exempt from payment of corridor fees. Governmental owned and constructed facilities and utilities will be exempt unless the facility is used for commercial or revenue generating purposes. Portions of twelve cities are included within the benefit areas for the SJ~TC and F/ETC. The County may adopt a fee program only within the unincorporated areas. Participation by cities, therefore, is an important ingredient to a successful program that does not create inequities to property owners within differing jurisdictions. City and County cooperation is not only required in the adoption of a program and collection of fees, but should extend to decisions regarding expenditure of the funds. It is planned that Joint Powers Agencies consisting of City and County member~ will be created to plan and implement the Corridors. Ail fees collected under this program will be deposited in accounts specifically for the transportation corridors to accomplish this purpose. -2- .~t%JOR THOROUGI~FARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM FOR SAwN JOAQUIN HILLS AND FOO~{ILL/EASTERN TP. ANS PORTAT I ON CORRIDORS BACKGROUND Government Code Sections 50029 and 66484.3 and California Constitution Article 11, Section 7 permits the establishment of local ordinances to require payment of fees as a condition of approval of a final map or as a condition of issuing a building permit for purposes of defraying the actual or estimated cost of constructing bridges over waterways, railways, freeways and canyons, or constructing major thoroughfares. Pursuant to the above provisions of the Government Code, and the Police Powers the Board of Supervisors adopted Section 7-9-316 of the Orange County Codified Ordinances providing fo~ the establishment of major thoroughfare and bridge construction fees to be paid by subdividers and building permit applicants in the County of Orange. On April 21, 1982, the Board of Supervisors, by Resolution 82-598, directed the Envirommental Management Agency (~4A) to begin analyzing potential areas of benefit as an adjunct to the Orange County/Orange County Transportation Commission - Transportation Finance Study and to proceed with the establishment of a fee program. The Board, furthermore, determined that developers of subdivisions which contain portions of any transportation corridor, would dedicate right-of-way, grade and construct necessary portions of the corridor and participate in any established corridor fee program. On February 15, 1983 the Board of Supervisors, by Resolution 83-239, iden- tified interim areas of impact for the San Joaquin Hills and Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors and directed ~4A to require subdividers to enter into contracts to participate in corridor implement- ation pending establishment of a fee program. On September 28, 1983, ~ submitted a report on the Transportation Corridor Fee Programs to the Board of Supervisors for referral to the Planning Co~nission for recommendations. Public meetings were subse- quently held by the Planning Commission on October 11 and November 1, 1983 to consider the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Pee Programs. On January 30, 1984 the Planning Co~nis$ion adopted Resolution No. 45-83 reco.~T~ending that the Board of Supervisors adopt Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Programs for ~ne San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor. On October 3, 1984 the Board of Supervisors, by Resolution 84-1462, adopted areas of Benefit and Major Thoroughfare and Bridge fees within unincorporated Orange County for the San Joaquin Hills and Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors. Subsequent cooperative analysis of the fee program by Orange County, Orange County Transportation -3- Commission, Building Industry Association, and cities within the areas of benefit have lead to the revisions contained within this report. II. DESCRIPTION OF CORRIDOR A TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR is a high-speed, high volume, access-controlled multimodal facility with a median of sufficient width to be utilized for transit considerations such as fixed rail or high-occupancy vehicles. The corridors will provide for high speed movement of vehicular traffic where projected volumes exceed major arterial highway capacities. These routes will function similarly to freeways and expressways and should eventually be incorporated into the freeway and expressway system. They are, therefore, designed to meet minimum State and Federal standards. The relatively rapid growth and planned future development in Orange County is contributing directly to the need for major transportation corridors. Three such corridors (Foothill, Eastern and San Joaquin Hills) are included on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), e component of the Transportation Element of the Orange County General Plan. Transportation corridors are depicted on the MP~ map as either concept- ually proposed or established alignments. These facilities are part of a planned traffic circulation system necessary to support development of the County in accordance with County and City land use plans. These facilities will also relieve recurrent congestion on major arterials and freeways in Orange County as concluded by several recent studies: Multi- Modal Transportation Study (1980), Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Study (1981), Foothill Transportation Corridor Study (1981), and the San.Joa~in Hills Transportation Corrido~ Study (1979). The SAN JOAQUIN HILLS .~RANSPORTATION COP~IDOR is planned as a high-speed, high capacity, access-controlled transportation facility to serve local and regional traffic and transit needs. It is an established alignment on the MPAH which includes the Corona del Mar Freeway (Route 73) in the Cities of Costa Mesa, Ne .wport Beach and Irvine and extends southeasterly approximately 15 miles to join the San Diego Freeway (I-5) between Avery Parkway and Junipero Serra Road near the City of San Juan Capistrano (see Exhibit I). It will be designed to comport to scenic highway standards and provide approximately six to ten general purpose travel lanes with a median of sufficient width to accommodate future high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and special transit facilities if required. The central segment of the corridor carries the greatest amount of traffic because there are a limited number of o~her parallel highway facilities. Traffic volumes on the south end of the corridor are lowest along the route as a result of countywide traffic orientation~ which is geaerally to the north. Access to the corridor will be limited to approximately 12 grade-separated interchanges with arterial highways plus provisions for future additional exclusive interchange ramps for HOV lanes. Additional bridges may be required as the corridors cross substantial canyons and water courses. The EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR is currently shown as a conceptual alignment on the MPAH. The FOOTHILL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR is an -4- established alignment between the Eastern Corridor and a point northerly of Ortega Highway and a conceptual alignment between that point and San Diego Freeway (I-5). As depicted on Exhibit I, the Eastern Transportation Corridor will intersect the Riverside Freeway (Route 91) between Weir Canyon Road and Gypsum Canyon Road extending southeasterly approx. 13 miles to a point southerly of the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) in the Cities of Tustin and Irvine. The Foothill Transportation Corridor will originate from the Eastern Corridor between Santiago Canyon Road and Irvine Boulevard and extead southeasterly approx. 32 miles to the San Diego Freeway (I-5) below San Clemente in San Diego County. It is anticipated the Eastern corridor will be a landscaped, grade separated scenic corridor which includes approximately six general purpose travel lanes and the Foothill Corridor, a landscaped corridor which includes four to general purpose travel lanes with medians or other areas wide enough to accommodate HOV/Special Transit requirements if necessary. Access to the corridor will be limited to grade-separated interchanges with arterial highways plus provisions for future exclusive interchange ramps for ~OV lanes. III. CORAIDOR PLANNING The level of facility planned in this report will support currently adopted land use plans of the County and Cities surrounding the corridors. In the event the Cities and County subsequently auqment their existing General Plan land uses, particularly in areas serving the Foothill and Eastern Corridors, those facilities may require increased lanes to accommodate that growth. It is intended that the fee adopted under this program will be reevaluated if an additional level facility is identified to serve increased adopted land uses. The majority of the length of corridor alignments fall within relatively undeveloped areas of the County. Exceptions to this are either end of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and the central segments of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors. Each corridor traverses areas of hilly terrain. A majority of the areas traversed by the corridors is zoned Planned Community with tentative tracts proceeding in various stages of approval. An alignment was selected by the Board of Supervisors for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor on November 28, 1979 and the northwesterly segment of the Foothill Corridor on May 25, 1983. ~ore detailed engineering work is currently underway on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor to refine the selected alignment and determine right-of-way requirements. Similar detailed engineering is also in progress for the northwesterly segment of the Foothill Transportation Corridor through developer studies of surrounding lands. Alignment selection studies are well underway on the Eastern Corridor and just getting started for 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 Highway System. State legislation (AB 86) has been signed into law which redescribes State Route 73 (Corona Del Mar Freeway) to include the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. -5- IV. ESTIMATED COSTS The construction costs within this report include estimates for all corridor grading and general travel lane improvements including bridges, structural section, interchanges, partial landscaping, and arterial highway realignments dictated by the corridor alignments. The cost of grading general High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes is included but not the cost of HOV structural section, bridges, median barriers or special access ramps. It is intended ~_hat implementation of any transit guideway or facilities, if needed, would be provided from other funding sources. Other costs included for both Corridors includes engineering design, administration, construction inspection and right-of-way acquisition costs. It is proposed that developers will dedicate the majority of right-of-way for the transportation corridors. The cost estimate includes a cost for the portion of the right-of-way which would exceed a standard major arterial highway constructed along the corridor alignment excluding slope easements. The portion of right-of-way equivalent to a major arterial highway is excluded from the estimate to maintain a policy consistent with other arterial highway dedications. The cost of slope easements is excluded because of the wide variations between the natural terrain condi- tions 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 inter- secting arterial highway was also excluded from the cost estimate on the assumption that it will be dedicated i~ accordance with established development policy. The right-of-way to be included as part of the corridor cost was assumed to have a value of $50,000/acre. A. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR (SJHTC) The cost of constructing the SJHTC to the standard of improvement as described in the previous section is based on estimates prepared for the County during the Phase II SJHTC study work and is estimated to be: T~Ls SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR COST Construction: Engineering & Admin.: Contingencies: Right Of Way (in excess of ~.~ajor Arterial Hwy.): $259,736,000 38,960,000 25,974,000 16,990,000 Total (for purposes of Fee Program): $341,660,000 -6- B. FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS (F/ETC) The cost for constructing the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors was estimated from information obtained from the Weir Canyon Park Road Study dated October, 1982, the Foothill Transportation Corridor Route Location Study dated December, 1982, and projection of costs from the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Unit prices used in the cost estimates are considered to adequately estimate the cost in 1984 dollars. The estimated costs are as follows: TABLE IV-2 FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS COST Foothill Eastern Total Construction: Eng. & Admin.: Contingencies: Right Of Way (in excess of Major Art. Hwy.): $233,557,000 35,033,000 35,033,000 14,151,000 $143,526,000 21,528,500 21,528,500 11,790,000 Total (for purposes of Fee Program): $317,774,000 $198,373,000 $377,083,000 56,561~500 56,561,500 25,941,000 $516,147,000 V. OVERALL FINANCING The Board of Supervisors has established a transportation corridor development policy (Exhibit II) which defines the corridor implementation obligations of land development projects, and as noted in Section I of this report has indicated its general intent to require all new development to bear a portion of the cost of the corridors by payment of development fees (Major Thoroughfare Fee). Funds from other more traditional sources (e.g., existing state and federal taxes on motor vehicle fuel) will be sought for the portion of the cost not funded by development fees. These other funds would be allocated through processes involving the California Transportation Commission and the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC). In order to qualify for state and federal funding, the corridor routes must be incorporated into the state highway system and placed in one of the federal aid systems. State Route 73 (Corona Del Mar Freeway) has been legislatively redescribed to correspond with the route of San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. It is intended that at an appropriate time similar legislation will ultimately be introduced to place the Foothill/Eastern Corridors in the state highway system. This Major Thoroughfare & Bridge Fee report focuses only on the portion of the corridor implementation costs which may be attributable to new growth and for which development fees are proposed. -7- The statutes identified in Section I of ~is report which authorize the collection of development fees specify that an Area of Benefit (AOB) shall be established which encompasses real property, which will benefit from construction of the major thoroughfares and bridges. The method of determining the AOB and the share of total corridor costs proposed to be paid by new development in the form of fees is explained in Sections VI and VIII of this report. The estimated corridor costs and the portions proposed to be allocated to new development through the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge (MT&B) fee program are: New Development Approximate Total Cost Share of Cost % 48.4% 48.5% San Joaquin Hills: $341,660,000 $165,500,104 Foothill/Eastern: $516,147,000 $250,228',066 In accordance with current Board of Supervisors' policy, new developments within the path of the transportation corridors will be conditioned to dedicate right-of-way and grade the corridor within the boundaries of the development, construct arterial overcrossings for internal arterial highways and construct corridor travel lanes and interchange ramps required immediately for access to the development or for closure of short gaps in the transportation system. The estimated cost of these improvements including-the estimated value of R~W dedication in excess of that required for a standard major arterial highway (excluding slope easements) will be considered as a credit against the required MT&B fees to the extent that these costs are included in the fee program. VI. AREA OF BENEFF~ In order to establish an MT&B fee program, an Area of Benefit (AOB) must be identified within which fees may be required upon issuance of building permits or recordation of ~inal maps to defray the cost of the major thoroughfares and bridges. Construction of the transportation corridors will provide key facilities to ensure that the County's transportation system is in balance with both existing and future land uses. The benefits, therefore, accrue not only to those properties which generate a high demand for use of the corridor but those which will benefit from less congestion and delay on the arterial highway and freeway system serving the property. Implementation of a balanced transportation system, including the corridors, will, furthermore, benefit undeveloped properties by allowing approval of land use to the level in County and City General Plans. It is ~ clear that both existing developed properties and undeveloped properties will benefit from construction of the transportation corridors. Development fees are proposed to finance a portion of the corridors proportional to the traffic demands, measured in trip ends, created by new -8- growth. The portion of cost based upon existing trip ends represents the benefit to developed properties. Revenue for the cost allocated to existing development will be provided from public funding sources identified in Section V, "Overall Financing," of this report and, therefore, will not be assessed to individual properties. The methodology used to determine the AOB consisted of determining the influence the corridor had on trips made within the County. The analysis was conducted with a system of computer programs known as UTPS1 (Urban Transportation Planning Systems). The computer programs were tailored for specific Orange County application and are commonly known as the SOCCS2 travel demand model. The model subdivides Orange County and portions of adjacent Los Angeles County into more than 500 traffic analysis zones (TAZ). The model esti- mates the number of person trips each TAZ generates based on socioeconomic variables such as population, employment, income and number of housing units. These trips are then distributed frcm each zone to all other zones by a well-established procedure. The model then determines how many of these person trips will travel by auto, and finally assigns these auto trips onto a highway network. The socioeconomic data used in the AOB analysis is from the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Study and the Foothill Transportation Corridor Study. Using the trip-making data described above, a select link analysis (program UROAD3) was performed to determine the number of corridor related trip ends which originate in, or are destined for, each traffic analysis zone (TAZ). These corridor TAZ trip ends were used in conjunction with the total TAZ trip ends (arterial highway~ plus corridor) to compute the percentage of trip ends by TAZ which use the corridor. The resulting percentages were posted on TAZ maps in 2% increments (Exhibits III and The influence area for each of the corridors is quite pronounced at the 4% and greater trip use level as shown on the exhibits. The pattern of corridor usage becomes erratic below the 4% level. The determination of the AOB for each of the transportation corridors was based primarily on the above corridor influence areas. ~owever, the following additional criteria were used to supplement the percent of corridor use data to analyze relative benefits: 1UTPS is a battery of sophisticated computer programs developed and sponsored by the Federal Urban Mass Transportation Agency (UMTA) for forecasting travel demand. 2South Orange County Circulation Study (SOCCS) travel demand forecasting model developed by EMA/Transportation Planning Division. 3UROAD is one of the computer programs in UTPS. flexible highway assignment and analysis program. It is a comprehensive -9- 1. Corridor trip ends exceed 1.75 trip ends per gross acre of the TAZ. 2. Total corridor trip ends per TAZ exceed 2,000. 3. Trip end growth within each TAZ exceeds 45%. 4. Perceived direct and indirect benefits to the transportation system. Identifiable physical and planned features closely approximating the pattern of corridor usage were used to describe the boundaries 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 create relatively high demands for use of the cor£idors were placed in a different fee zone within the area 9f benefit than other developments with less direct use. The boundaries between the fee zones were determined utilizing the TAZ data on Exhibits III 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% use were defined as Zone B. Zone A and B are depicted on Exhibit I. VII. DESCRIPTION OF AREA OF BENEFIT (AOB) The AOB's for the San Joaquin Hills and the combined Foothill/Eastern Corridors include both incorporated and unincorporated territory and generally encompass the southeasterly half of Orange County as illustrated on Exhibit I. A. SAN JOAQUIN HIL&S TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR A more detailed map of the San Joaquin ~ills Transportation Corridor AOB is shown on Exhibit V. This AOB contains approximately 122 square miles. All or portions of the following cities are within this AOB: TABLE VII-1 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS AO8 BY LOCAL JURISDICTION ¢it~ Costa Mesa Irvine Laguna Beach Newport Beach San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana City Subtotal Unincorporated Territory Total Area Included in AOB 3.2 sq. miles 22.2 5.6 8.3 3.8 8.2 2.8 54.1 68.3 122.4 sq. miles -10- The AOB is bounded by the Pacific Ocean: beginning at the easterly boundary of the City of NewpOrt Beach at the Pacific Ocean; thence along said external boundary defined by annexation nos. 843, 64, 897, 84, and 585 to its intersection with an extension of Fifth Avenue; thence northwesterly along said extension to Fifth Avenue; thence northwesterly along the centerline of said Fifth Avenue to Coast Highway; thence northwesterly along the centerline of said Coast Highway to the crossing of the Upper NewpOrt Bay; thence along a line northerly through said Upper Ne ~wport Bay t9 the point where the Santa Aha-Delhi Channel (Facility F01) enters said Upper Newpert Bay; thence along the centerline of Santa Ana-Delhi Channel from Upper Ne _wport Bay to University Drive; thence westerly along the centerline of said University Drive to Santa Ana Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of said Santa Ana Avenue to Corona Del Mar Freeway (State Route 73); thence northwesterly along the center!ine of said Corona Del Mar Freeway to the San Diego Freeway (Interstate Route 405); thence westerly along the centerline of said San Diego Freeway to Harbor Blvd.; thence northerly along the centerline of said Harbor Blvd. to MacArthur Blvd.; thence easterly along the centerline of said MacArthur Blvd. to Main Street; thence northerly along the centerline of ~aid ~ain Street to Dyer Road; thence easterly along the centerline of said Dyer Road to Grand Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of said Grand Avenue to Edinger Avenue; thence easterly along the centerline of said Edinger Avenue to the Newport-Costa Mesa Freeway (State Route 55); thence southwesterly along the centerline of said Newport-Costa Mesa Freeway to Warner Avenue; thence southeasterly along the centerline of said Warner Avenue to Red Hill Avenue; thence southwesterly along the centerline of said Red Hill Avenue to Alton Avenue; thence northwesterly along the centerline of said Alton Avenue to the NewpOrt-Costa Mesa Freeway; thence southwesterly along the centerline of said Ne,~port-Costa Mesa Freeway to the San Diego Freeway (Interstate 405); thence southeasterly along the centerline of said Interstate 405 to Interstate 5; thence southerly along the centerline of said Interstate 5 to its intersection with the prolongation of the southerly boundary of Rancho Mission Vie jo (approximately at Via Escolar); thence southeasterly along the Rancho Mission Viejo boundary line as described by Record of Survey 9/15-18 to the e~sterly corner of Tract No. 6381; thence westerly along the southerly line of said Tract No. 6381 to the easterly boundary at Parcel Map No. 80-851; thence southerly along said easterly boundary of Parcel Map No. 80-851 to Rancho Viejo Road; thence southerly along the centerline of said Rancho Viejo Road to Ortega Highway; thence easterly along the centerline of said Ortega Highway to La Novia Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of said La Novia Avenue and its proposed extension to Tentative Tract No. 11648; thence southerly along the easterly boundary of said Tentative Tract No. 11648 to the boundary of Tentative Tract No. 11832; thence southerly along the easterly boundary of said Tentative Tract No. 11832 to the northerly boundary of Tract No. 8087; thence easterly and southerly along the boundary of said Tract No. 8087 to the boundary of Tract No. 9784; ~hence easterly along the northerly boundary of said Tract No. 9784 and the prolongation of said boundary to the boundary of the City of San Juan Capistrano; thence southeasterly along said city external boundary defined by Incorporation boundaries of April 19, 1961 and annexation nos. 105 and 24 and deannexation per City resolution 62-11-13-2 to Interstate 5; thence southerly along the centerline of said Interstate 5 to its intersection with the Orange/San Diego County line; and thence southerly along said County line to the Pacific Ocean. Zone A Zone A is bounded on the south by the Pacific Ocean and is described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the total area of benefit westerly boundary with the Pacific Ocean; thence along said total area of benefit boundary to Marguerite Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of said Marguerite Avenue to San Joaquin ~ills Road; thence easterly along the center line of said San Joaquin Hills Road to Spyglass Hill Road; thence northerly along the centerline of said Spyglass Hill Road to San Miguel Drive; thence northerly along the centerline of said San Miguel Drive to Ford Road; thence northeasterly along the centerline of said Ford Road and its proposed northeasterly extension as shown on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways dated August 8, 1984, to Bonita Canyon Road; thence easterly along the center line of said Bonita Canyon Road to the proposed southerly extension of Sand Canyon Avenue as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence easterly along the centerline of the proposed extension of Sand Canyon Avenue to the westerly extension of Bake Parkway as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence easterly along the centerline of the proposed extension of said Bake Parkway to Laguna Canyon Road; thence southerly along the centerline of said Laguna Canyon Road to the proposed westerly extension of Santa Maria Avenue as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence easterly along the centerline of the proposed extension of Santa Maria Avenue and Santa Maria Avenue to Moulton Parkway; thence southerly along the centerline of said Moulton Parkway to E1 Toro Road, thence northeasterly along the centerline of said ~1 Toro Road to Paseo de Valencia; thence southeasterly along the centerline of said Paseo de Valencia and its easterly prolongation to intersect Interstate 5 which is also the easterly boundary of the total area of benefit; thence southerly along said easterly boundary of the total area of benefit boundary to where it again intersects Interstate 5 in the vicinity of Camino Las Ramblas; thence northerly along the centerline of said Interstate 5 to San Juan Creek Road; thence westerly along the centerline of said San Juan Creek Road to Camino Capistrano; thence northerly along the centerline of said Camino Capistrano to Del Obispo Street; thence westerly along the centerline of said Del Obispo Street to Alipaz Street; thence southerly along the centerline of said Alipaz Street to Camino Del Avion; thence westerly along the centerline of said Camino Del Avion and its proposed westerly prolongation as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial Highways, to Crown Valley Parkway; thence southerly along the centerline of said Crown Valley Parkway to Monarch Bay Drive; thence southwesterly along Monarch Bay Drive and its southwesterly prolongation to the Pacific Ocean. -12- Zone B Zone B is described by the total San Joaquin Hills area of benefit excluding Zone A as described above. B. FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS A single area of benefit was selected for the combined Foothill and Eastern Transportation Corridors because of corridor usage patterns. A more detailed map of the Foothill/Eastern Corridors AOB is shown on Exhibit VI. This AOB contains approximately 291 square miles. All or portions of the following cities are included in this AOB: TABLE VII-2 FOOTHILL/EASTERN AOB BY LOCAL JURISDICTION city Anaheim Irvine Orange San Clemente ~ ~ San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana ~' ~' Tustin Villa Park Yorba Linda City Subtotal Unincorporated Territory Area Included in AOB 14.1 sq. miles 18.9 10.6 13.5 5.0 2.8 11.1 2.1 17.7 95.8 194.7 Total 290.5 sq. miles The AOB is bounded generally by the northerly boundary of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor AOB from the San Diego County Line to the intersection of the San Diego Freeway (State Route-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 centerline of said Alton Avenue to Red Hill Avenue; thence northeasterly along the centerline of said Red Hill Avenue to Warner Avenue; thence northwesterly along the centerline of said Warner Avenue to State Route 55; thence northeasterly along the centerline of said State Route 55 to Edinger Avenue; thence westerly along the centerline of said Edinger Avenue to Grand Avenue; 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 of said Tustin Avenue to Jefferson Street; thence northerly along said Jefferson Street to the southerly city limits of P!acentia; thence along the external boundary of said city limits defined by annexation nos. 69-1, 76-1, 71-01, -13- 65-4, 63-3, 64-1, 65-7, 63-4, 63-2, 64-4, and 72-2 to its intersection with Imperial Highway; thence southeasterly along the centerline of ~aid ImDerial Highway to Valley View Avenue; ~h~nce northerly along the centerline of said Valley View Avenue and its prolongation to the southerly boundary of Chino Hills State Park; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of Chino Hills State Park to its intersection with the Orange/San Bernardino County line; thence southeasterly along the Orange County line to the boundary of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Area of Benefit. ZONE A Zone A begins at the Orange/San Bernardino County line where said County Line intersects the centerline of the proposed extension of La Palma Avenue as shown on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways dated August 8, 1984; thence westerly along the centerline of said proposed La Palma Avenue to the proposed extension of Gypsum Canyon Road a~ shown in said Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence southerly along the centerline of said proposed Gypsum Canyon Road to the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91); thence westerly along the centerline of said State Route 91 to the northwesterly prolongatio~ of the easterly boundary of the Wallace Ranch as shown in Orange County Record of Survey 2-5; thence southeasterly along said prolongation of the easterly boundary of the Wallace Ranch and continuing southeasterly along said easterly boundary to the northeasterly corner of the Oak Hills Ranch as shown in said Record of Survey 2-5; thence southeasterly along the easterly boundary of said Oak Hills Ranch as shown in ~aid Record of Survey 2-5 and continuing southwesterly along the southerly boundary of said Oak Hills Ranch as shown in said Record of Survey 2-5 to the proposed southerly extension of Weir Canyon Road as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence southerly along said Weir Canyon Road to Irvine Boulevard; thence easterly along the centerline of said Irvine Boulevard to Sand Canyon Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of said Sand Canyon Avenue to the proposed realignment of Trabuco Road as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence easterly along the centerline of said proposed realignment of said Trabuco Road to the proposed northerly extension of Muirlands Boulevard; thence along said Muirlands Boulevard to the centerline of Alton Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of said Alton Avenue to Jeronimo Road; thence easterly along the centerline of said Jeronimo Road to Bake Parkway; thence northerly along the centerline of said Bake Parkway to Trabuco Road; thence easterly along the centerline of said Trabuco Road to Alicia Parkway; thence northerly along the centerline of said Alicia Parkway to Portola Parkway; thence easterly along the centerline of said Portola Parkway to the proposed Antonio Parkway as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence southerly along the centerline of said Antonio Parkway to Ortega Highway; thence southwesterly along the centerline of said Ortega Highway to the proposed easterly extension of Avery Parkway as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence westerly along the centerline of said proposed extension and Avery Parkway to the Santa Ana Freeway -14- VIII. where it intersects ~he common boundary between the Foothill/Eastern and the San Joaquin Hills AOBs; thence southeasterly along said common AOB boundary to the Orange/San Diego County line; thence northerly along the Orange County line to where it intersects the centerline of the proposed La Palma Avenue as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial Highways. ZONE B Zone B is described by the total Foothill/Eastern area of benefit excluding Zone A as described above. FEES In order to establish a corridor fee, it is necessary to determine who is to pay the fee, the facility cost to be supported by fees and a basis or unit of measure for the fees. As has been previously stated, it is proposed that fees be paid by future development within the defined areas of benefit in reasonable proportion to the benefit derived. The corridor facilities will, of course, also benefit existing development within the areas of benefit. The share of corridor cost attributable to benefits derived by existing development is proposed to be funded from other sources. A. Determination of Fee Program's Share of Corridor Cost The first step in calculating the fee program share of the corridor cost was to determine the percentage of corridor user trip ends that originate or end within the area of benefit which are attributable to new growth. Trip information derived from the SOCCS travel demand model was used for this analysis. This 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-peak hour travel characteristics. Approximately sixty-one percent1 (61%) of corridor trips are expected to occur during non-peak travel hours, thus representing a measure of the direct benefit from the corridors. Approximately thirty-nine percentt (39%) of corridor trips are expected to occur during peak hours of travel, thus representing lessened congestion on the remaining transportation system. This system relief is defined as indirect benefit. The direct and indirect factors were used to identify ~he relative benefits between the A and B zones. The portion of fee program share representing direct benefit was divided between the A and B zones based upon the percentage of corridor user trips due to growth within each zone. The portion of developers share representing indirect benefit was distributed between the A and B zones based upon the percentage of total trip ends on the transportation system within 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 VIII show the method in which these calculations were made. 1Caltrans, LARTS 1976 Urban Rural Survey. -15- The fee program share of Corridor Cost shown below represents an estimate of the share attributable to new development. It is expected that this share may change as future revisions are made to the fees. Total Corridor Costs ($) TABLE VIII-1 FEE PROGRAM SHARE OF CORRIDOR COST Developers Share (%) Developers Share ($) SJHTC Zone A 28.6% $ 97,856,775 Zone B 19.8% $ 67,643,330 Total $341,660,000 48.4% $165,500,104 Zone A 25.8% $133,096,091 Zone B 22.7% $117,131,975 Total $516,147,000 48.5% $250,228,066 Determination of Base Fee The cost attributable to future development must be reduced to a fee so that it may be apportioned in an equitable manner to specific types of development. Allocation of the cost on the basis of trip end generation by general land use category is proposed, where: Zone A cost a~ortioned to future development in the AOB zone cost/trip end trip end growth in the AOB zone SJHTC F/ETC $97,856,775 $133,096,091 1,321,160 = $74/TE 1,665,922 = $80/TE Zone B $67,643~330 = $46/TE 1,462,093 $117,131,975 = $43/TE 2,730,731 The data used in computing the average cost per trip end are su~arized in Exhibit IX and X. The trip end generation factors used in the calculation were derived from the EMA Trip Generation Rates, shown in Exhibit XI. The projected growth in dwelling units was taken from the respective San Joaquin Hills and Foothill Transportation Corridor studies. Projected growth in industrial/commercial floor space was generated from MMTS II4 employment projections. 4Employment projects adopted by the Orange County Transportation Commission. -16- C. FEE DISTRIBUTION Various land uses within the area of benefit have been grouped into three major categories for the purposes of distributing fees to individual developments. The three general categories used include residential single-family dwelling units, residential multi-unit dwellings, and non-residential land uses. The trip ends calculated for the non-residential land use category were a summation of more specific non-residential categories such as manufacturing, retail regional, neighborhood/community commercial, and office uses. The trip generation rates used to calculate the trip ends for each of these more specific non-residential land uses were averages of rates shown in Exhibit XI. 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 trip ends for neighborhood/community commercial land uses. This adjustment was an attempt to reflect the benefits to residential land uses which accrue from construction of neighborhood/community commercial development. Neighborhood/community commercial primarily benefits local residents by providing an opportunity to shop close to home. Many of the trip ends typically assigned to local retail uses are accounted for by these short trips arriving from and returning to residences. These residential-related trip ends actually provide savings in travel costs due to the short nature of the trip. Addi- tionally, neighborhood/community commercial development tends to reduce energy consumption and traffic impacts. Residential land uses receive sufficient benefit from construction of neighborhood/community commercial development to distribute a portion of the trip ends attributable to neighborhood/community commercial development to residential land uses. For this reason, 60% of the trip ends attributable to neighborhood/community commercial development were reassigned to single family residential and multi- unit residential land uses as a measure of this increased benefit. The reassigned trip ends were split between single family and multi- unit residential land uses based upon their respective trip ends due to growth. The adjusted trip ends are as follows: Land Use Category TABLE VIII-2 ADJUSTED AOB TRIP ENDS Zone A Generated Adjusted Trip Ends Trip Ends Zone B Generated Adjusted Tri~ Ends Tri? Ends SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Single Family Residential Units Multi-Unit Residential Units Neighborhood/Conununity Commercial 379,452 557,635 139,368 254,936 193,956 285,053 240,723 440,312 448,800 179,520 525,262 210,105 FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS Single Family Residential Units Multi-Unit Residential Units Neighborhood/Community Commercial 666,024 897,960 643,812 1,143,880 160,377 216,238 248,906 442,221 479,662 191,865 1,155,638 462,255 -17- Once this adjustment was made, the fee program share of the total corridor cost for each of the three generalized land use categories was determined. The single-family residential and multi-unit residential share of the corridor cost was calculated first by multiplying the adjusted trip ends shown above by the appropriate cost per trip end as developed in Exhibits IX and X. The non-residential share of the corridor cost was calculated by using the difference between the total fee program share and the total residential share of the corridor cost. The fee program share of corridor cost by generalized categories is: TABLE VIII-3 FEE PROGRAM SHARE BY LAND USE CATEGORY Single Family Multi-Unit Residential Residential Non-Residential Total Developer's Share SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Zone A $41,264,990 $21,093,922 Zone B $11,727,056 $20,254,352 $35,497,862 $35,661,922 97,856,774 67,643,330 FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS Zone A Zone B $71,836,800 $17,299,040 $49,186,840 $19,015,503 $43,960,251 $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 determined, a fee for each of these categories was determined by dividing each share by the appropriate number of residential units or area of buildings shown in Exhibits IX and X. Following is the final fee calculation for each of the three general land use categories for both A and B fee zones. TABLE VIII-4 Land Use AREA OF BENEFIT FEES Fee Rounded Calculation Fee Fee SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Zone A Single-family residential Multi-unit residential Non-residential $41,264,990 · 31,621 units $21,093,922 ? 27,708 units $35,497,862 ~ 20,021,185 sf $1,305/unit $761/unit $1.77/sf $1,305/un[t $760/unit $1.75/sf Zone B Single-family residential Multi-unit residential Non-residential $11,727,056 ~ 11,614 units $20,254,352 · 34,389 units $35,661,922 ~ 27,700,559 sf $1,010/unit $589/unit $1.29/sf $1,010/unit $590/unit $1.30/sf -18- Fee Land Use Calculation Fee Rounded Fee FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Zone A Single-family residential Multi-unit residential Non-residential $71,836,800 e 55,502 units $17,299,040 ? 22,911 units $43,960,251 · 24,231,767 sf $1,294/unit $755/unit $1.81/sf $1,295/unit $755/unit $1.80/sf Zone B Single-family residential Multi-unit residential Non-residential $49,156,840 · 53,651 units $917/unit $19,015,503 e 35,558 units $535/unit $48,929,632 ? 46,616,669 fees $1.05/sf $920/unit $535/unit $1.05/sf D. APPLICATION OF FEES When development fees are collected at the time of building pe_rmit issuance, the number of residential units or area of non-residential buildings will be known. The fees for each development will simply be calculated by multiplying the number of residential units or gross floor area of non-residential buildings times the appropriate land use category and the fee zone. Gross floor area shall be defined as total floor area including each floor of multiple story buildings within the outer footprint of the building as described on the building permit. Adjustments will not be made to traffic generatioD rates to reflect anomalies due to project design or other conditions. All land uses will be determined to be within the most appropriate of the three general land use Categories. In the event an existing non-residential building is proposed to be expanded, the fee will be determined by the net increase of building area. If a non-residential building is converted to another non- residential use with no net increase in building area, no fees shall be required. Parking structures shall also be exempt from payment of fees since they do not generate a vehicular attraction in and of themselves. The following categories which receive exemptions from payment of property taxes will also be generally exempt from paying transportation corridor fees: 1) Church; 2) Religious; 3) College; 4) Welfare; 5) Wholly Exempt; 6) Other. The final determination of whether a property is exempt will be based upon verification of a property tax exemption for those specified categories on the latest Assessor's roll as defined for Orange County by the State of California. Government-owned facilities or utilities shall be exempt from payment of fees to the extent that the facilities will not be used for generating revenue or commercial purposes. Examples of exempt public uses are city halls, park buildings, and other public buildings. Privately owned utilities will not be exempt from payment of corridor fees. -19- Notwithstanding property tax exemptions, governmental-owned or constructed facilities (including but not limited to counties, cities and redevelopment agencies) which will generate revenue or be leased for commercial purposes shall pay fees in accordance with the established fee schedules.- Examples of 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 facilities is an expansion of an existing use, the fee shall be determined based upon the net increase of building area. Ail disputes over application of fees to specific projects or disputes over exemptions of projects from fee requirements shall be presented to the Joint Powers Agency described in Section XIII of this report for resolution. Examples of fee calculations: The fee for a development consisting of 100 single-family detached units, 300 condo units and 25,000 s.f. of office and Neighborhood Shopping Center uses would be: San Joaquin Hills AOB (Zone A): (100 D.U. x $1305/D.U.) (300 D.U. x $760/D.U.) (25,000 S.F. x $1.75/$.F.) Total fee for development if located in Zone A of SJHTC AOB 130,500 228,000 43,750 = $ 402,250 Foothill/Eastern AOB (Zone B): (100 D.U. x 920/D.U.) = $ 92,000 (300 D.U. x $535/D.U.) = $ 160,500 (25,000 S.F. x $1.05/S.F.) = $ 26,250 Total fee for development if located in Zone B of Foothill/Eastern AOB = $ 278,750 Total fee for reconstruction of a 10,000 sr. office building to a 15,000 s.f. Neighborhood Shopping Center would be calculated as follows: San Joa~uin Hills A0B (Zone B): (5,000 s.f. x $1.30/s.f.) = $ 6,500 Total fee for development if located in Zone A of SJHTC AOB = $ 6,500 -20- Foothill/Eastern AOB (Zone A): (5,000 s.f. x $1.80/s.f.) = Total fee for development if located in Zone A of Foothill/Eastern AOB ~ IX. DEFERRAL OF FEES $ 9,000 $ 9,000 It is proposed that fees may be deferred for residential multi-unit rental projects or projects which include State or Federal requirements to provide units affordable to families with incomes less than 80% of the median income (Section VIII housing). The deferral may be for a period of five years from the issuance of building permits or the period of the State/Federal funding requirements beginning upon issuance of the first building permit. The fees to be paid shall be those in effect at the time of payment and shall be secured by an agreement and renewable letter of credit held by an escrow company, or cash or time certificate of deposit in the amount of fees plus 15 percent in anticipation of inflationary increases. X. CRITERIA FOR COLLECTION OF FEES XI. The enabling ordinance provides for collection of fees as a condition of final map approval or issuance of building permits. Fees shall be collected prior to issuance of all building permits for new residential structures and commercial/industrial structures which establish new and enlarged floor space. Fees will not be required for remodeling or reconstructing existing structures to the same number of residential dwelling units or equal commercial building area. Fees will not be required for construction of retaining walls, patio covers, swimming pools or other non inhabitable residential structures. DEVELOPMENT EXACTIONS & CREDITS Development Projects containing portions of transportation corridors within their boundaries shall be required by condition of approval of cities or County to accomplish the following: 1. Dedicate right-of-way in accordance with schematic plans approved by the Joint Powers Agency. 2. Grade corridor right-of-way in accordance with schematic plans approved by the Joint Powers Agency and shown on the Tentative Tract Map and rough grading plans. 3. Construct arterial overcrossings for internal arterials. Width of overcrossing structure (i.e., number of travel lanes) is to be determined based upon vehicular and pedestrian traffic generated by the proposed project. 4. Construct corridor travel lanes and interchange ramps required immediately for access to proposed development or system continuity -21- (closure of short gaps). Number of lanes required is to be based upon traffic generated by proposed project. Participate, among other designated beneficiaries, in the San Joaquin ~ills or Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor fee program. Subdivisions in which right-of-way, grading and improvements are required for the transportation corridors will be eligible for credit toward payment of the MT&B fees to the extent that the costs are included in development of the fee program. Whenever subdivisions are conditioned to grade or improve portions of transportation corridors or dedicate right- of-way in excess of Major. Arterial Highway Standards, and these costs exceed fees, the developer shall enter into an agreement prior to recordation of final tract or parcel maps to identify the difference in the dollar amount between the estimated costs of the grading, improvements, and/or right-of-way, and the calculated fees. Such agreements will establish the amount of reimbursement for which the subdivision is entitled. A developer shall be entitled to reimbursement for a period of fifteen (15) years after acceptance of improvements by the appropriate legislative body. If the estimated costs of the grading, improvements, and/or excess right of way are less than the calculated fee, a developer may relinquish credits in lieu of paying fees until credits are fully utilized with the remainder of the fee collected prior to issuance of building permits. In the event a development not requiring subdivision is conditioned to construct or grade portions of the transportation corridors or dedicate right-of-way, reimbursement agreements shall be executed prior to issuance of any building permits within the project boun~aries. Developers will be allowed to apply credits earned on one project to another project within the same area of benefit owned by the same developer. In the event title to the land of a project changes, credits can be transferred to another developer with the title to the land upon written notification to the appropriate legislative body that is a party to the reimbursement agreement. Credits will otherwise be non transferable from one developer to another. Credits can be used for the purpose of reducing fees prior to completion and acceptance of grading, improvements or right-of-way dedication. However, no reimbursements shall be made until all grading, improvements or dedication are completed and accepted by the Board of Supervisors or City Council and funds are available for reimbursement as determined by the appropriate legislative body. The guidelines for determination of fee credits are as follows: 1. General Credit for right-of-way dedication, grading, and other improvements will only be given to the extent that the cost of such right-of-way or improvements are included in the calculation of fees in the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. -22- 2. Right-of-Way Credit will be given for right-of-way dedication at the rate of $50,000 per acre except for slope easements and a 120-foot-wide strip along centerline of the transportation corridor which would normally be required for arterial highway dedication. Grading Credit will be given for earthwork, road and slope drainage, buttressing, stabilization, hydroseeding and erosion control at the following combined rates: Corridor Segment Credit Rate SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Jamboree to Station 511+50 $149,784 per acre road easement Station 511+50 to Moulton Parkway $124,132 per acre road easement Moulton Parkway to Paseo de Colinas $124,915 per acre road easement FOOTHILL/EAStERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Foothill/Eastern Corridor $137,060 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 easements. The credit values furthermore include percentages or work estimated for engineering, administration and contingencies for the respective transportation corridors. 4. Drainage Structures Credit will be given for drainage structures in accordance with lengths of pipe and unit prices estimated as costs in the fee program or for as-built structures which the Director, EMA or his designee determine are reasonable equivalents of the structures tn the fee program cost estimate. Unit prices for as-built drainage structures will be those used in the latest fee program cost estimate. Engineering and administration credit of 15% of the drainage structure credit will be added. Contingency credit of 10% of the drainage structure credit will be added. Terrace drains, downdrains and temporary drainage facilities or erosion control facilities are included in the average unit cost of grading. 5. Other Improvements Credit will be given for other improvements at the rate at which the improvement was estimated in the fee program plus 15% for engineering and administration plus 10% for contingencies. The credit rates specified above will be revised whenever the corridor cost estimates are revised for the purpose of adjusting fees. Once -23- fee credits are established by an executed reimbursement agreement, no further adjustments will be made to those credits because of revisions to the corridor cost estimates or fee adjustments. XII. ANNUAL FEE ADJUSTMENT XIII. It is intended that the fee programs be submitted annually to the Board of Supervisors and City Councils for fees to be automatically adjusted based upon an approved construction cost index. Updated project cost estimates, substantial changes in general plan land use elements, or other pertinent information may also be cause for adjustment by the Board of Supervisors and City Councils. In the event an annual evaluation of the fee programs causes fees to be reduced for any reasons, reimbursements will not be considered for fees already paid. CITY PARTICIPATION IN FEE PROGRAM There are twelve different cities within the proposed areas of benefit for the Foothill/Eastern and San Joaquin Hills ~ransportation Corridors. Joint Powers Agencies iJ~A) consisting of City and County members are proposed for the purposes of planning and implementing the San Joaquin Hills, Foothill and Eastern Transportation Corridors. It is proposed that separate JPA's be created for the San JoaGuin Hills Corridor and the combined Foothill/Eastern Corridors. Fees collected by Cities and the County will be deposited with each JPA for the purposes of designing and constructing the corridors. The JPA will be responsible for administering fees collected under this fee program including any reimbursements called for in reimbursement agreements identified in Section XI of this report. KRM: ltDT20-4 -24- 7/19/85 I_ I I I % I I / ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ~4 15 - ~ 16 o§ 17 19 ~0 21 ~- 26 28 RG: dh EXHIBIT I1 RESOLUTION OF .THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA April 21, 1982 On motion of Supervisor Wieder, duly seconded and carried, the following Resolution was adopted: ~EREAS, development of lands is occurring which contributes directly to the need for transportation corridors; and WHEREAS, said development may obstruct future right-of-way for the transportation corridors; and WHEREAS, development benefitting from implementation of the transportation corridors should contribute toward the cost generally in proportion to the need generated; and WHEP~EAS, right-of-way for the transportation should be protected as development occurs; and WHEREAS, grading should be accomplished, whenever possible, in conjunction with the grading and development of surrounding property; and WHEREAS, implementation of logical increments of the corridor should occur in conjunction with the land development process whenever the transportation needs of that development require those facilities for access; and WHEREAS, development policies for the implementation of the transportation corridor will provide a basis for planning of future development and serve as notice to the public as to the future locations of the corridors; Resolution No. 82-598 Transportation Corridors Development Policy -26- ! ~iOW, l'H; .~';.O~E, BE IT ~E~OLVED that as a condition of =~,p~oval 2 of subdivisions containing within their boundaries portions, of ~ transportation corridors shown on the Transportation Element of the 4 County General Plan the developer shall: 5 1. Dedicate right-of-way to County. 6 2. Grade corridor right-of-way in accordance with schematic 7 plans approved on the tentative map and rough grading plans approved 8 by the Director, EMA. 9 3. Construct arterial overcrossings for internal arterials. l0 Width of overcrossing structure (i.e., number of travel lanes) is to ]! be determined based upon vehicular and pedestrian traffic generated ~2 by the proposed project. 1~ 4. Construct corridor travel lanes and interchange ramps 14 required immediately for access to proposed development or system continuity (closure of short gaps). Number of lanes required is to be based upon traffic generated by proposed project. 5. Participate, among other designated beneficiaries, in any i8 established corridor development fee program. Costs incurred pursuant 19 to. Conditions 2 through 4 shall be creditable against fees. Costs 20 incurred pursuant to Condition 1 shall be creditable against fees to 21 the extent that the development fee pro~ram includes said right-of-way 22 cost. 25 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that EMA is hereby directed to amend 24 appropriate sections of the Subdivision and Zoning Codes to implement 25 this policy. ~6 BE IT' FURTHER RESOLVED that EMA is hereby directed to incorporate 27 in General Plan amendment elements, zoning actions, area plans and 28 site plans recommendations appropriate for implementing this policy. -27- 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1o 11 12 ~3 14 bE IT :~L,n~'HLk kESOLVED that EM~ is hereby directed to begin analyzing potential areas of benefit as an adjunct to the Orange County/ Orange County Transportation Commission Transportation Finance Study. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that affected cities be requested to adopt similar policies. BE IT FURTHER R~SOLVED that EMA is hereby directed to proceed expeditiously with the establishment of a fee program. ~9 NOES: 2O 21 23 24 25 26 27 2B SUPERVISORS ~-~3. IETT M. WIEDER, RALPH B. CLARK, AND ROGER R. ST~NTON SUPEPV ISOPJ NON~ ABSENT: SUPERVISORS BRUCE ~ESTA.NDE AND THOM. AS F. RILEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE I, JUNE ALEXANDER, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly ~d ..r~.~l~r.]y adopted by the sa~d Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2ist.~d~y'of kpr~,s, , lg 82 , and passed by a unanimous vote of said I~l WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand an~bal this 2ist ~ay of ~ril , 19 82 : .l .',aUNE ALEXANDEP ~'/'.'' Clerk of"~'~ard of Supervisors ( ~ -- © Z 0 ii' EXHIBIT VII Page 1 of 2 FEE PROGRAM SHARE OF TOTAL CORRIDOR COST SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Corridor User Tri~s With One or Both Ends In Zone Trips beginning and ending in zone (Trips due to growth) (Total trips) In/Out Trips (Trips due to growth) (Total trips) Out/In Trips (Trips due to growth) (Total trips) Zone A 27,109 29,047 60,145 78,820 57,362 73,274 Zone B 5,890 9,811 25,834 35,345 28,141 38,582 Outside AOB 9,116 22,195 49,798 69,894 50,274 72,203 Trip End Analysis (Trip ends due to growth) 171,725 65,755 118,304 (Total trip ends) 210,188 93,549 186,487 (Percent corridor T~ due to growth)1 81.70% 70.29% 63.44% (Percent corridor .users TE by Zone)2 42.88% 19.08% 38.04% (Percent corridor users TE due to growth)3 35.03% 13.41% 24.13% 1percent corridor TE due to growth = trip ends due to growth Total Trip Ends 2percent corrider users TE by zone = Total tri~ ends ~er zone Sum~ation of total trip ends 3percent corridor users TE due to growth = Percent TE due to growth x percent corridor users TE by zone DT20-19 -33- 0 -34- EXHIBIT VIII Page 1 of 2 FEE PROGRAM SHARE OF TOTAL CORRIDOR COST FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Corridor User Tri~s With One or Both Ends In Zone Trips beginning and ending in zone (Trips due to growth) (Total trips) In/Out Trips (Trips due to growth) (Total trips) Out/In Trips (Trips due to growth) (Total trips) Zone A 27,922 28,200 68,629 80,763 75,449 89,823 Zone B 9,322 11,657 31,320 46,004 33,648 45,760 Trip End Analysis (Trip ends due to growth) 199,922 83,612 (Total trip ends) 226,986 115,078 (Percent corridor TE due to growth)1 88.08% 72.66% (Percent corridor users TE by Zone)2 38.81% 19.68% (Percent corridor users TE due to growth)3 34.18% 14.30% Outside AOB 20,555 37,307 64,217 88,512 55,069 79,696 160,396 242,822 66.05% 41.52% 27.42% 1percent corridor TE due to growth = tri? ends due to 9rowth Total Trip Ends 2percent corrider users TE by zone = Total tri~ ends ~er zone Surmllation of total trip ends 3percent corridor users TE due to growth = Percent TE due to growth x ~ercent corridor users TE by zone DT20-19 -35- · · ~ 0 0 0 0 ;'o ,.~ O~ -36- -37- -38- EXHIBIT XI Page 1 of 2 DAILY VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION RATES ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ~%NAGEMENT AGENCY August 1982 The following is a listing of vehicle trip generation rates used for planning purposes by the Environmental Management Agency. These rates have been compiled from a variety of sources, including County conducted studies, and are deemed representative of land uses within Orange County. "TE/Ksf" is an abbreviation for trip ends per thousand square feet of gross building floor area. "TE/Acre" refers to trip ends per developed acre. Land Use TE/Ksf TE/Acre TE/Other INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial/Industrial Park Warehouse RESIDENTIAL Single Family Detached Single Family Detached-Estate Multiple Unit (Apartments, Condos) Mobile Home Retirement Community LODGING Hotel Motel Resort Hotel (TRC Use) RECREATIONAL Neighborhood Park Regional Park State Park Marina Beach Golf Course Campground Tennis Club Raquetball Club INSTITUTION Elementary School Junior High School High School Junior College Church - Weekday Church - Sunday Library -39- 13 176 5 62 26 19 44 42 30O 47 6O 8O 8O 60 135 310 12 TE/Du 15 TE/Du 7 TE/Du 5 TE/Du 4 TE/Du 10 TE/Room 9 TE/Room 18 TE/Room 4 TE/Berth 350 TE/1000' Shore 5 TE/Campsite 43 TE/Court 31 TE/Court 1.0 TE/Student 0.9 TE/Student 1.4 TE/Student 1.5 TE/Student EXHIBIT XI Page 2 of 2 Land Use TE/Ksf TE/Acre TE/Other MEDICAL Hospital Nursing Home OFFICE 18 200 14 TE/Bed 3 TE/Bed General Office 15 240 Medical Office 75 Research Center 10 40 RETAIL Discount Store 65 Hardware/Home Improvement 50 Shopping Center - Regional 50 ( 30 Acres) Shopping Center - Community 70 (10-30 Acres) Shopping Center - Neighborhood 135 ( 10 Acres) Restaurant - Quality (i.e., Velvet Turtle, 110 Hungry Tiger, etc.) Restaurant - High Turnover (.ie., Bob's, 350 Denny's, etc.) Restaurant - Fast Food (i.e., MacDonald's, 900 Carl's Jr., etc.) Automobile Sales Service Station Supermarket 125 Convenience Market (i.e., 7-11, 550 Stop & Go, etc.) SERVICES 180 195 65 75 Bank - Walk In Bank - Drive In Savings and Loan - Walk In Savings and Loan - Drive In 55O 500 900 1250 400 750 TE/Station KRS:desDT20-22 6/11/85 -40-