HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING PROGRAM - 2017 UPDATE•9
AGENDA REPORT RevieAgendwed.-
City
_
City Manager
Finance Director
r%i
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2017
TO: JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER
FROM: DOUGLAS S. STACK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING PROGRAM —
2017 UPDATE
SUMMARY
A 2017 updated analysis has been completed of the fair share contributions required of
development areas at Tustin Legacy to finance Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure to serve
new development.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Receive and approve the 2017 Update of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure
Financing Program and Tustin Legacy Fair Share Analysis; and
2. Direct staff to utilize the fair share allocations for specific development areas in
negotiated sale or conveyance transactions, including those transactions that involve
development agreements, disposition and development agreements and/or other
transaction agreements at Tustin Legacy necessary to accommodate private
development.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Finance Program 2017 Update (TL Infrastructure
Program) assists in the financing of public facilities and required developer EIS/EIR mitigation
for the Tustin Legacy Project and, as needed, to serve development at Tustin Legacy. Total TL
Backbone Infrastructure Program costs would total $467M, assuming approval of this update,
an increase of $72M over the 2011 Update (See Table 1 of attachment). To date completed
facilities were originally estimated at $233M (See Table 1 of attachment). Actual expenditures
were only $189M thus creating savings totaling $44M. Total facilities yet to be constructed are
estimated at $234M (See Table 6 of attachment).
Total funds collected from all sources to date equals $258M. Anticipated future developer
contributions would be expected in the amount of $164M (See Table 2 of attachment). There is
essentially no change to developer contributions from the 2011 Update, just a re -distribution
over Disposition Areas based on the recently approved Specific Plan Amendment. Additional
facility costs were added based on an increase of $36M from outside financing sources
(primarily grants and CFD 14-01) and the aforementioned construction savings (See Table 2,
Subtotal of "Other Financing Sources" of attachment).
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Financing Program — 2017 Update
October 17, 2017
Page 2
Amounts may be modified in the future by the City Council based on any subsequent updates to
the TL Infrastructure Program.
CORRELATION TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN
The Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Finance Program 2017 Update contributes to the
fulfillment of the City's Strategic Plan Goal A: Economic and Neighborhood Development.
Specifically, the project implementation of Strategy 1, which among other items, is to develop
critical phases of Tustin Legacy.
DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
The TL Infrastructure Program is part of a comprehensive financing and construction
program to ensure completion of needed backbone infrastructure necessary to
accommodate development within the former Marine Corps Air Station (also referred to
as the Tustin Legacy Project), which includes properties within the City of Tustin and the
City of Irvine and all properties within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan ("Specific Plan")
area.
The purpose of the TL Infrastructure Program is to facilitate early completion of
improvements when needed, provide for a method of financing the backbone
infrastructure network, to make provision for development where certain Tustin Legacy
backbone infrastructure is required as a condition of development, and to ensure that
new development is in balance with adequately serving backbone infrastructure. The
TL Infrastructure Program is based in part upon the environmental mitigation measures
contained in the Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report for the Disposal and Reuse of the Former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin (the
"Final EIS/EIR", as subsequently amended), the MCAS Specific Plan and Tustin
General Plan, the corresponding Master Development Plan and Design Guidelines for
the Tustin Legacy Project, and approved Concept Plans and entitlements granted for
development within the Tustin Legacy Project, including subsequent amendments
thereto.
The TL Infrastructure Program also required adjustment based on updated regulatory
requirements and actual costs of construction to complete backbone elements and
estimated construction cost inflationary increases. The TL Infrastructure Program
identifies certain required backbone infrastructure improvements needed to serve future
development within the Tustin Legacy Project along with the corresponding source
documents, such as, but not limited to, the Final EIS/EIR and Specific Plan, as may
have been amended, which identify the level of development that can be
accommodated upon their completion. Through the TL Infrastructure Program, the
phasing of future development can also be linked to the phasing of required backbone
infrastructure.
The TL Infrastructure Program requires all new private development within the Tustin
Legacy Project to pay a Fair Share Contribution of required Tustin Legacy backbone
infrastructure, or to design and construct TL Infrastructure Program improvements,
and/or a combination, as agreed to by the City and a developer. The Fair Share
Contributions correspond to actual costs for improvements which include necessary
funding for engineering and construction costs of backbone infrastructure
improvements, the City's administrative and construction management expenses
related to such backbone infrastructure improvements, and any plan checking and
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Financing Program — 2017 Update
October 17, 2017
Page 3
inspection and permitting expenses. The TL Infrastructure Program does not include
maintenance or operational costs for said backbone infrastructure improvements.
The 2017 update to the TL Infrastructure Program is based on review of the TL
Infrastructure Program by the City's Public Works Department, Economic Development
Department, and supporting consultants to determine any adjustments to the program
necessary to (1) reflect actual costs incurred or projected costs to design and install
certain backbone improvements required under the TL Infrastructure Program in
accordance with the Tustin General Plan, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the Final
EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin, as amended; (2) determine the
need to eliminate and/or add any backbone improvements to the TL Infrastructure
Program based on subsequent planning or other events, and; (3) to reevaluate outside
funding sources and to determine if any additional funding sources are available
impacting the program on certain development sites.
The update reflects the most current information available to the City. No inflationary
increases in individual backbone improvements have been proposed in the update at
this time. However, several major facility additions and deletions have been
incorporated in the program from the 2011 update to reflect the latest specific plan
changes adopted by the City Council this year.
A more detailed overview of the TL Infrastructure Program, its history, mechanisms for
implementation of the program through future opportunity sales transactions (including
the use of development agreements, disposition and development agreements and
purchase and sale agreements and other transaction agreements) and a detailed
description of the purpose of the Fair Share Contributions required under the program
by backbone infrastructure category is provided in the attached report. The seven
categories of infrastructure facilities that are addressed in the program include:
• Transportation and circulation improvements;
• Drainage improvements which include retention and detention basins, storm
drains and flood control channels and water quality and mitigation improvements;
• Dry utility improvements;
• Parks, open space, and recreational improvements;
• Library improvements (completed);
• Fire facility improvements (completed), and;
• Community entry signage (completed).
In addition, the TL Infrastructure Program report includes an analysis by David Taussig
and Associates ("Taussig Analysis") of the proposed 2017 Fair Share Contributions that
are assigned to individual development areas and the methodology for distributing costs
to individual development sites. Based on the Taussig Analysis, the following table
provides a summary of the Tustin Legacy Infrastructure Program Fair Share
Contributions by development site location proposed for 2017 in comparison to previous
City Council actions in the past on the program.
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Financing Program — 2017 Update
October 17, 2017
Page 4
Comparison of TL Backbone Infrastructure
Required Net Fair Share Contributions
Funds
Development Sites
2006
2007 Update
2011 Update
Received To-
2017 Update
Date
MMP (Columbus Square and
Columbus Grove in Tustin and
$60,481,233
$67,254,215
$63,455,488
$63,455,488
NA
Irvine)
Laing (Tustin Fields I and II -WL
Homes)
$9,733,437
$9,733,437
$9,733,437
$9,733,437
NA
Vestar (District)
$36,330,000
$36,330,000
$36,330,000
$36,330,000
NA
City (18 acre facility along Red
$0
$0
$8,498,101
$0
$0
Hill Ave. now Army Reserve site)
Former Master Development
Site
D -1A North (Anton Legacy)
NA
NA
$4,324,393
$4,324,393
NA
D -1A South
NA
NA
$2,397,140
$0
$458,026
D -1B (Greenwood)
NA
NA
$8,787,926
$8,787,926
NA
DAC (The Village at TL)
NA
NA
$10,305,617
$10,305,617
NA
D -2A (Amalfi)
NA
NA
$12,523,355
$12,523,355
NA
D-26 (Amalfi)
NA
NA
$2,777,289
$2,777,289
NA
D -2C
NA
NA
$18,205,955
$0
(See D-8)
D-3
NA
NA
$10,529,699
$0
(See D-713)
D-4 (Flight)
NA
NA
$14,372,841
$6,499,347
$7,873,494
D-5
NA
NA
$15,609,620
$0
$25,902,196
D -6A (Greenwood)
NA
NA
$21,457,742
$8,146,778
NA
D-66
NA
NA
(See D -6A)
$0
$1,341,143
D -7A
NA
NA
$52,761,330
$0
$47,448,903
D-76
NA
NA
(See D -7A)
$0
$56,646,649
D-8
NA
NA
$43,235,295
$0
$24,663,331
Sub -Totals
$227,984,805
$280,014,435
$217,289,203
$53,364,705
$164,333,742
Total Fair Share
Contributions
$345,529,476
$393,332,086
$335,306,229
$162,883,630
$164,333,742
Other Financing Sources
(Grants, CFDs, Quimby Act
fees paid, library
contributions, Tustin Ranch
$13,907,409
$14,146,844
$59,235,564
$95,255,356
Road Irvine Co. Agreement,
etc.)
Total TL Infrastructure
Program Contributions
$348,436,885
$407,478,930
$394,641,793
$422,472,728
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Financing Program — 2017 Update
October 17, 2017
Page 5
For purposes of implementation of the TL Infrastructure Program and clarifying issues
that have been previously discussed with development entities regarding the program,
the following narrative is intended to identify the process and procedures to be utilized
in requiring future Fair Share Contributions in conjunction with future real estate
transactions at Tustin Legacy.
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program Fair Share Contribution Process
Property sales agreements, disposition and development agreements, development
agreements and/or other transaction agreements, shall be utilized to implement the TL
Infrastructure Program. The program has distinct separate Fair Share Contributions
with different Fair Share Contributions for different Disposition Packages and/or
Planning Areas. The Fair Share Contributions for each development area have been
allocated based upon the comprehensive methodology identified in the attached report
and 2017 Taussig Analysis.
Developers or landowners would enter into agreements with the City to design and
construct, or provide cash or debt financing for their TL Infrastructure Program Fair
Share Contributions. If the City Council is willing to participate in issuance of
Community Facilities Districts (CFD's) based on, and in anticipation of, a receipt of bond
proceeds, the City may allow a developer/landowner to defer payment of its Fair Share
Contribution, provided that the deferral of the Fair Share Contribution is secured by a
performance bond or letters of credit in a form approved by the City. If TL Backbone
Infrastructure Program improvements are determined to be needed, at the City's sole
discretion, the City could request an advance from the developer before bond proceeds
are available or, in the event of developer's failure to be responsive, the City could call
on the performance bonds or letters of credit.
Developers/landowners who participate in funding the design and construction of TL
Infrastructure Program improvements will receive credit toward payment of their Fair
Share Contributions to the extent that such improvements are within the TL
Infrastructure Program, costs are approved by the City, and such cost of improvements
are equal to the development site's Fair Share Contribution. Any credit procedure will
be identified in a Reimbursement Agreement upon the City receiving a performance
bond or letters of credit securing the obligation for design and construction.
Credits may be transferred to the subsequent developer/landowner for a particular
development area with the transfer of title to the land. However, transfer of credit
between participating developer/landowners, where title to the land is proposed to be
transferred, shall be first approved in writing by the City.
The current TL Infrastructure Program includes the estimated cost of constructing an
improvement, including labor, materials and equipment costs; the reasonable cost of
designing and preparing the plans, including engineering services which generally are
approximately 10% of construction costs (there are a few minor exceptions for more
complex improvement items); estimated fees paid to governmental agencies in order to
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Financing Program — 2017 Update
October 17, 2017
Page 6
obtain permits, licenses or other necessary governmental approvals; and reviews and
costs for professional services directly related to the construction, including engineering,
legal, accounting, inspection, construction staking, materials, testing and similar
professional services, which costs would not exceed 5% of construction costs;
construction management services, which costs would not exceed 5% of construction
costs; and costs of payment, performance or maintenance bonds and insurance
(including any title insurance). Each item of authorized costs includes only amounts
actually paid to third parties and do not include overhead or other internal expenses.
Exemptions
All disputes regarding the applicability of whether Fair Share Contributions are required
for specific projects or the exemption of a project from Fair Share Contributions
requirements shall be presented to the City of Tustin for resolution.
The following categories which receive exemptions from payment of property taxes shall
also be generally exempt from making Fair Share Contributions towards the Tustin
Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program: (1) churches; (2) religious organizations; (3)
City or public agency owned uses not being used for economic return; and (4) welfare
uses. The final determination of whether a property is exempt will be based upon the
verification of a property tax exemption for those specified categories of the latest
Assessor's roll as defined for Orange County by the State of California.
Government-owned facilities and utilities shall be exempt from payment of Fair Share
Contributions to the extent that the facilities shall not be used for generating revenue or
commercial purposes. Examples of exempt public uses are city halls, parks and park
buildings, and other public buildings. Private possessory interests and private
development on public property not owned by the City of Tustin will not be exempt from
payment of any required Fair Share Contributions. Updates to the TL Infrastructure
Program may need to occur incrementally to reflect a redistribution of Fair Share costs
when these circumstances arise.
Fair Share Contributions may also be waived in the case of affordable housing units that
are specifically granted as "density bonuses" under the City of Tustin's Density Bonus
Ordinance. Under statewide density bonus provisions, granting of such density
bonuses by the City are exempt from any environmental review requirements. Since
these projects are an intensification of the baseline, where no additional environmental
review is necessary on future projects, no additional Fair Share Contribution revenue
towards the TL Infrastructure Program shall be assumed for additional affordable units
approved with density bonuses.
Application of Fair Share Contributions
When Fair Share Contributions are collected prior to the time of a first building permit
being issued within a Disposition Package or planning area, the Fair Share Contribution
shall be determined based on the authorized entitlements of development within an
individual Disposition Package or planning area based on the Fair Share Analysis.
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Financing Program — 2017 Update
October 17, 2017
Page 7
In the event that a developer/landowner intends to request an intensification of the land
uses identified in the Fair Share Analysis for a Disposition Package or Planning Area,
the Fair Share Contribution will be recalculated by the City based on the net increase in
building area by land use type being proposed.
Notwithstanding property tax exemptions, government-owned or constructed facilities
(including but not limited to counties and cities) which will generate revenue or be
leased for commercial purposes shall be required to make a Fair Share Contribution
towards the TL Infrastructure Program. Examples of this include the revenue
generating portions of airports, train stations, sports arenas, convention centers, bus
terminals, hotels, or concessions on public lands. In the event that construction of these
facilities is not currently known, and is an expansion of an existing use, the Fair Share
Contribution shall be determined by the City based on the net increase of building area
and type of land use.
Fair Share Contributions are limited to capital improvements that expand system
capacity and shall not be spent on maintenance, personnel training or other operating
costs.
Rights of Way
Rights -of -Way for the TL Infrastructure Program are assumed to be dedicated to the
City by developers/landowners in conjunction with developer where required by the City
or may have already been acquired or reserved by the City. Consequently, the costs for
Rights -of -Way have not been included in the TL Infrastructure Program with the
exception of minor arterial increments that were in the City of Irvine and needed to
complete a missing link or intersection improvement as originally shown in the TL
Infrastructure Program. Right -of -Way dedications are therefore, not creditable towards
Fair Share Contributions.
Future Updates to the Fair Share Contributions
The City, on a regular basis, will review the list of TL Infrastructure Program
improvement components for possible revisions to update costs or changes to specific
improvements. The basis for cost changes would be generally where amendments to
program improvements are actually determined necessary and whether the subsequent
design status of an improvement results in the need to re-examine and modify a cost
estimate and as a result of normal increases in construction costs based on current
economic conditions (i.e. cost of living adjustments, increases in commodity prices,
etc.).
In the event that a Fair Share Contribution or part thereof exceeds actual expenses for a
TL Infrastructure Program improvement component, the City will reserve the right to
reallocate excess contribution funding to cover other designated TL Infrastructure
Program costs. Once a Fair Share Contribution has been made for a development
area, no subsequent increases in the allocation of a Fair Share Contribution shall be
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Financing Program — 2017 Update
October 17, 2017
Page 8
made to that development area unless otherwise provided for in a Development
Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement, Reimbursement Agreement, or
other real estate transaction agreement.
Staff will be available to answer any additional questions from the City Council.
'Stack, P.E.
Public Works/City Engineer
Attachment: Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Financing Program 2017 Update
SACity Council Items\2017 Council Items\10-17-2017\TL Backbone Program Update\171009 Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Financing Program- 2017 Update.docx
W&,kVASSOCIATES
ID TAUSS[G
IJ
5000 Birch Street, Ste. 6000, Newport Beach, GA 92660
Phone: 949.955.1500 1 Fax: 949.955.1590
MEMORANDUM
To: Ken Nishikawa, Deputy Director of Public Works/Engineering,
City of Tustin
From: Steve Runk, Vice President of Engineering, David Taussig & Associates
Tara Nathan, Manager, David Taussig & Associates
Date: October 12, 2017
Subject: Tustin Legacy Fair Share Analysis Update
In 2006 David Taussig & Associates, Inc. ('DTA") completed for the City of Tustin
("City") a fair share analysis that allocated backbone infrastructure costs to the various
development parcels' located within the Tustin Legacy limits. In 2008 DTA provided an
updated analysis reflecting then -current project costs. In 2011 DTA provided a
subsequent update to the allocation study that reflected current project costs, changes in
product mix, changes in parcel configuration resulting in an increase in development
parcels, revised project list and project costs, and current balances related to outside
funding sources. DTA is conducting the current 2017 update, on behalf of the City, to
revise the backbone fee allocation based on changes to parcel configurations and the
project list, as well as changes to projected residential dwelling units and non-residential
building square footage as set forth in the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment 2015-
01 (adopted July 18, 2017).
Specifically, this memo is provided in response to a request from City to provide a
current update of the allocation study that i) allocates estimated backbone costs among
the six remaining development parcels or combination of development parcels; ii) revises
the project list and estimated project costs by removing completed facilities and replacing
various facilities with facilities that are better suited to mitigate the impacts of the
' The term "Parcel' is used in this study to refer to Tustin Legacy "Disposition Area".
1
remaining future development, and iii) updates the balances in various funds available to
pay for projects to be constructed, thus offsetting developer allocations.
Although City, acting as the master developer for the Tustin Legacy Project, may not be
bound by the requirements of AB 1600 (i.e., the "Mitigation Fee Act"), DTA has made
every effort to follow the guidelines of AB 1600 to ensure that this study is complete,
equitable, and defensible.
Tables 1 and 2, below, provide a summary of the change in total program costs and the
change in total program revenues, respectively, from the 2011 update to present.
TABLE 1
COST UPDATE FOR 2017
Original Budget of Facilities Completed To -Date 1 1 $233,032,6341
Remaining Facilities and Replacement Facilities
Roadway/Bridge Improvements $126,965,715 $47,341,877
Traffic Signals $7,207,476 $3,337,000
Traffic Mitigation - Santa Ana/Inline Agreements $10,958,207 $0
Total Transportation $145,131,397 $50,678,877
Drainage Improvements $111,624,122 $51,554,918
Water Quality/Mitigation Improvements $16,189,697 $0
_ Total Drainage $127,813,819 $51,554,918
EMNIMMM Dry Utilitiesl $19,539,7031 $7,925,1921
Park and Open Space Facilities $82,227,832 $123,474,754
Library Facilities $12,889,900 $0
Fire Facilities $5,488,855 $0
Community Entry Facilities $1,550,287 $0
JiMies $102,156,874 $123,474,754
Total Program Cost $394,641,793 $466,666,376
Increase (Decrease) from 2011 to 2017 $72,024,583
Percentage Increase (Decrease) from 2011 to 2017 18.25%
4
TABLE 2
REVENUE UPDATE FOR 2017
2011
Total Fair Share Contributions
$335,306,229
$327,217,372
Contributions Collected To -Date
$162,883,630
Contributions To Be Collected
$164,333,742
Monies remaining in Backbone -Related Funds
To -Date
$44,193,648
Other Financing Sources
City of Inline Settlement
$4,500,000
$4,500,000
2010 Tax Allocation Bonds
$31,900,000
$31,900,000
Quimby Fees
$6,219,218
$6,219,218
Library Contributions
$10,035,900
$10,035,900
Other Funding
$6,680,446
$4,739,435
TSIA - Warner Avenue
$3,000,000
Warner Ave - Measure "M" Competitive
$5,400,000
OCTA Detention Basin Grant
$824,688
TSIA... future development (City share at 15%)
$0
Measure M2 Competitive (OCTA) - TRR
$4,510,035
State -Local Partnership Program (Caltrans) - TRR
$4,703,035
Lennar Utility Trust - TRR
$794,495
CFD 14-01 (StanPac)... bond issuance in 2015 (.031 tax
rate)
$13,247,475
SOCCCD non -educational facility (if any)
$0
Measure M2 Competitive (OCTA) - Red Hill Widening
(25% City match required, $6 mil. max)
$5,381,075
Sub -Total
$59,335,564
$95,255,356
Total Program Revenues
$394,641,793
$466,666,376
Increase (Decrease) from 2011 to 2017
$72,024,583
Percentage Increase (Decrease) from 2011 to 2017
18.25%
The updated allocations for the remaining parcels as of September 2017 differ
substantially from the allocations for the same parcels in the 2011 Study. For some
parcels the new allocation is quite higher; for other parcels the allocations have been
reduced. Lack of a consistent pattern for both the total cost allocation and the per -acre
cost allocation among the various parcels is due to significant changes in land use type
and quantity. For instance, in 2011 under the adopted Specific Plan, the residential unit
total was projected at 2,105 units for the parcels in question (see the 2011 parcel list in
Table 3, below). Today, under the modified Specific Plan, the total residential
development allowed on these parcels is 4,486 units, representing an increase of 2,381
3
units.2 In 2011 under the adopted Specific Plan, the non-residential building square
footage total allowed on these parcels was 6,776,305. Today the total has been reduced to
5,085,380 square feet, representing a decrease of 1,690,925 square feet.3 Changes in the
mix of products within each parcel have further prevented a clear pattern of increases or
decreases in the allocations. Lastly, the set of parcels and combinations of parcels over
which the allocation is conducted has changed from 2011 to 2017, as shown in Table 3.
The change to the set of parcels in itself makes a direct comparison infeasible.
TABLE 3
2011 v. 2017 Parcel List
The estimated cost to construct the remaining infrastructure projects on the updated
facilities list is $233,633,742. There are uncommitted funds in various accounts that are
available for funding remaining infrastructure projects amounting to $69,300,000 A
summary of the total cost allocations and the per -acre cost allocations for each remaining
parcel or combination of parcels is shown in Table 4 below.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY
A detailed description of the allocated costs and credits, and the basis for allocations can
be found in Tables 4, 5 and 6 in the "Methodology" section and Tables C-1 through C-
4 and Tables D-1 through D-4 in the "Tables" section of this memorandum.
Developer Contributions
The total estimated cost for the facilities listed in this update will be financed by
developer contributions, funds remaining in account balances available for financing
future infrastructure projects, and funds available from Parcel D-4, future Phase 2 of
Flight. A summary of the sources and amounts of contributions required to fund the
2 The net increase of 2,381 units pertains specifically to Planning Areas 7 through 15 (i.e., the Planning
Areas associated with the parcels listed in the 2011 row of Table 3). The total net increase for Planning
Areas 1 through 22, under the modified Specific Plan, is 2,212 units.
s The net decrease of 1,690,925 square feet pertains specifically to Planning Areas 7 through 15. The total
net decrease for Planning Areas 1 through 22, under the modified Specific Plan, is 1,755,306 square feet.
M
In .
D -1A
D -1A
2011
D-113
D -1C
D -2A
D-213
D -2C
D-8
D-4
D-5
D -6A
D-613
D -7A
D -7B
D-3
North
South
D -1A
2017
D -2C & D-8
D-5
D-613
D -7A
D-713 & D-3
South
The estimated cost to construct the remaining infrastructure projects on the updated
facilities list is $233,633,742. There are uncommitted funds in various accounts that are
available for funding remaining infrastructure projects amounting to $69,300,000 A
summary of the total cost allocations and the per -acre cost allocations for each remaining
parcel or combination of parcels is shown in Table 4 below.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY
A detailed description of the allocated costs and credits, and the basis for allocations can
be found in Tables 4, 5 and 6 in the "Methodology" section and Tables C-1 through C-
4 and Tables D-1 through D-4 in the "Tables" section of this memorandum.
Developer Contributions
The total estimated cost for the facilities listed in this update will be financed by
developer contributions, funds remaining in account balances available for financing
future infrastructure projects, and funds available from Parcel D-4, future Phase 2 of
Flight. A summary of the sources and amounts of contributions required to fund the
2 The net increase of 2,381 units pertains specifically to Planning Areas 7 through 15 (i.e., the Planning
Areas associated with the parcels listed in the 2011 row of Table 3). The total net increase for Planning
Areas 1 through 22, under the modified Specific Plan, is 2,212 units.
s The net decrease of 1,690,925 square feet pertains specifically to Planning Areas 7 through 15. The total
net decrease for Planning Areas 1 through 22, under the modified Specific Plan, is 1,755,306 square feet.
M
infrastructure facilities identified in this update is listed in Table 5 below, "Contribution
Summary."
TABLE 5
CONTRIBUTION SUMMARY
Total $ 233,633,742
A detailed discussion of the methods used to allocate fair share cost responsibilities to the
various parcels is included in the "Methodology" section of this memorandum. The total
fair share cost allocated to each parcel on a per -net -acre basis is found in Tables 8 and 9
in the "Cost Allocation" section of this memorandum.
FACILITY COST
In the 2011 update the total facility cost was estimated to be approximately
$394,640,000. Since that time, infrastructure projects have been completed or replaced by
projects that are more appropriate for mitigating the impacts of proposed changes in
future development, including changes in parcel configurations and in proposed land
uses. Table 6 below is a summary of the revised facility costs that will be partially
funded by Developer contributions.
TABLE 6
Facility Cost Summary
Transportation Facilities $50,678,877
Drainage Facilities $51,554,918
Dry Utility Facilites $7,925,192
Park and Open Space Facilites $123,474,754
Total Facility Cost $233,633,742
A detailed breakdown of facility cost estimates by project is found in Tables A-1
through A-3 in the "Tables" section of this memorandum. The information in these
tables was provided by City staff.
COST ALLOCATION
DTA allocated costs by infrastructure category to the various disposition areas by using
methodologies specific to each type of infrastructure. The methodologies that were used
are explained in detail in the following section of this memorandum, "Methodology".
E
Tables 7 and 8 below summarize the total allocated cost and cost per acre for each
disposition area. Details supporting the per -acre costs in Tables 7 and 8 are found in
Tables D-1 through D-4 in the "Tables" section of this memorandum.
DEMOGRAPHICS
In order to determine the fair share costs to allocate to the various remaining disposition
areas (i.e., parcels), DTA used planned future residential dwelling units and non-
residential building square feet to project population and employment growth within the
study area. City staff provided updated raw data based on proposed parcel
reconfigurations and land use changes that have occurred since 2011. These raw data
were then compiled by DTA in different formats suitable for the allocation methods for
the various infrastructure categories. For instance, Table B-1 in the "Tables" section of
this memorandum lists residential units and non-residential square feet by disposition
area number to correspond with published trip generation rates, the basis for allocating
transportation and signage costs. Table B-1 is also used for the allocation of Parks and
Open Space costs. Table B-2 lists net acres by disposition area to correspond to Drainage
and Dry Utility allocations.
In the previous 2011 update, costs were allocated for Library, Fire, and Community
Signage as well as Water Quality Mitigation improvements. Because these facilities have
been either completed or eliminated since 2011, there are no such allocations included in
this update.
METHODOLOGY
Tables C-1 through C-6 and D-1 through D-6 in the "Tables" section of this
memorandum show detailed calculations for fair share allocation amounts for each
disposition area by facility type. Included below is a summary of the methodology
utilized to calculate each disposition area's fair share contribution necessary to fund the
developer allocation portion of the total estimated infrastructure cost.
Transportation and Signage Facilities Analysis (Tables C-1 and D-1):
Table D-1 in the "Tables" section describes the apportionment of transportation facilities
costs for each disposition area. Roads, bridges, and traffic signals benefit residents and
employees in providing safe and efficient vehicular access to properties. It has been well
documented by transportation engineers that different land uses generate trips at different
rates. Therefore road, bridge, and traffic signal costs are apportioned on the basis of
average daily trip ("ADT") generation factors provided by City staff. Table C-1 lists the
ADT rates used to calculate total ADTs. Table D-1 calculates the ADT contributions
from each disposition area and its percent of total. This percentage is used to allocate the
estimated transportation costs for the study area. These allocations by disposition area are
found in Table 7, "Cost Allocation Summary before Cost Reassignment or Credits".
on
Drainage Facilities Analysis (Tables C-2 and D-2):
Table C-2 describes the apportionment of drainage costs. The methodology used to
allocate drainage costs to future development is relative runoff contribution. The
Rational Method for computing runoff rates was used in the form of Q = C x I x A where
"Q" is equal to runoff volume, "C" is the ratio of impervious area to total area studied,
"I" is rainfall intensity, and "A" is Area, in acres of the City. A runoff factor, "C" of
1.00, indicates a totally impervious site, where every drop of rain would find its way to
the public streets as run-off. Only the relative contribution of runoff between land uses
needs to be considered. Thus, the "unit runoff', or runoff per storm intensity (Q/I) can be
computed using only the runoff factor and acreage data. Again, relative runoff among the
various land uses can be computed, indexed to a single family detached residential unit =
1.0. These runoff factors were then applied to the demographic data to determine cost
per run-off and corresponding fees. Table C-2 shows the calculations for run-off factor
multiplied by acreage for the various land uses, as well as a summation of total unit
runoff. Table D-2 calculates the total allocated cost to each disposition area by
multiplying the allocation rate per acre from Table C-2 by the net acres for each land use
within each disposition area.
Dry Utilities Facilities Analysis (Tables C-3 and D-3):
Table C-3 describes the apportionment of dry utility costs allocated to various
disposition areas by net acreage, based on the assumption that utility demand is uniform
across all disposition areas. The allocated cost per acre was then multiplied by the net
acreage for each disposition area to determine the fair share responsibility for each area,
shown in Table D-3.
Park and Open Space Facilities Analysis (Tables C-4 and D-4):
Table C-4 describes the apportionment of park and open space facilities, which are
assigned to both residential and non-residential development. Since the use of park
facilities is generally limited to daytime hours, it is reasonable to assume that a non-
working resident has a greater number of available hours for potential use per week than
a working resident or local employee. In order to equitably allocate the costs among
existing residents, availability of use is measured in terms of equivalent benefit units
("EBUs"), with one (1) EBU representing the potential park and recreation facilities
usage associated with a single-family detached residential unit.
EBUs for park facilities are a function of the number of hours potentially available for
use of the park facilities. As calculated in Table C-4, one EBU represents 188 potential
hours available for recreation use per single family detached household. Fee amounts for
park facilities associated with this component are calculated for residential and non-
residential land uses as detailed in Table D-4.
Table 7 below summarizes the cost allocations for the remaining parcels, by facility type.
These costs were allocated prior to taking any cost credits for remaining fund balances or
other sources of funds
7
TABLE 7
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY BEFORE COST CREDITS
Total $683,946 $36,828,436 $84,587,419 $38,678,368 $2,002,657 $70,852,916 $233,633,742
Table 8 below shows the cost per net acre by facility type for each remaining parcel. This
amount is determined by dividing the allocated costs in Table 7 above by the net acres
for each parcel.
TABLE 8
PER ACRE COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY BEFORE COST CREDITS
DevelopDevelopm ent AreaD-1
A
D -2C
D-ZM&6.
JA
Facility
$46,120
$54,086
$364,027
$28,936
$26,893
$40,381
Transportation Facilities
$117,404
$128,116
$146,755
$146,755
$88,053
$118,209
Drainage Facilities
$20,089
$20,089
$20,089
$20,089
$20,089
$20,089
Dry Utilities Facilities
$6,372
$245,744
$264,871
$534,001
$3,079
$346,547
Park and Open Space Facilities
Total Allocation Per Net Acre:
$189,985
$448,034
$795,742
$729,781
$138,114
$525,225
Approximate Net Acreage:
3.60
82.20
106.30
53.00
14.50
134.90
Table 9 below shows the net allocations and net allocations per acre for the remaining
parcels after subtracting the allocated credits from fund balances and other sources
indicated in Table 5, "Contribution Summary".
TABLE 9
COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY AFTER COST CREDITS FROM FUND BALANCES AND OTHER SOURCES
..
Total Fair Share Contribution per
$683,946
$36,828,436
$84,587,419
$38,678,368
$2,002,657
$70,852,916
$23I3,6 33,742
Development Area:
Percent of Total
0.29%
15.76%
36.21%
16.56%
0.86%
30.33%
100.00%
Credits:
11117
Account Balance of Non -
Committed Developer
$69,300,000
Contributions
Funds re -allocated from
Parcel D-4, future Phase 2 of
$7,873,494
Flight
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Total Credits
$77,173,494
Allocation of Account balance
$225,920
$12,165,105
$27,940,770
$12,776,172
$661,514
$23,404,013
Credit
Net Fair Share Contribution
$458,026
$24,663,331
$56,646,649
$25,902,196
$1,341,143
$47,448,903
$156,460,248
Net Acreage
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
3.60
82.20
106.30
53.00
14.50
134.90
394.50
Total Net Net Fair Share Per Net
$127,229
$300,041
$532,894
$488,721
$92,493
$351,734
Acreage:
TABLES
A-1 through A-3
B-1 through B-4
C-1 and D-1
C-2 and D-2
C-3 and D-3
C-4 and D-4
Updated Cost Estimates
Demographic Details
Transportation and Signage Allocation
Drainage Allocation
Dry Utility Allocation
Park and Open Space Allocation
10
0
0
O
R
m
7
H
r
u
E
l7
z
z
u
u
O
G
m
F
Z
Q
U
r O N o0 00 ti O� ti
m r Vc c O c O 0 r
1 l0 m r N N 00 O V1 VLr 1 00
m m O ti 01 r 0 V1 l0 V1 O O r N ti
01 a r 01 01 N l0 a a N O O m a a
io �n o a r m a ti o o ti a o �n m
m NI N O1 a a a l0 N W V1 NI r r
m a
ti r a ti N m m r o0 0 0 0 0 o N
rn o0 o rn r
O c rn Va O O O O rn o
N m r O a N 1 Oc 1 O O O V1 m oo0
O N l0 N T m 01 m V1 V1 O O N 01 00
00 0o a ti ti r �n �n ti r o o ti o0 0
N rl N N N m N rl m l0
00 �n rn a r m m r o0 0 0 0 0 o n
tr a m o0 0o rn rn a cn O O O O rn r
00 l0 00 a r O N V1 Ot O O O V1 m ti
m V1 r 00 V1 m 01 m V1 V1 O O N 01 V1
m m r ti io r �n �n ti r o o ti oo �n
N N m rI rI rI N m N rl m r
N N
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V1 V1 O V1 V1 V1 O O V1 V1 V1 O
N N O r r r V1 V1 r r r 0
01 01 O r r r N N r N r r
m m
r r rl N N N O O N N m N
l0 l0 r NI NI NI O O NI NI NI O
rl N N N N N N N N
N N
V1 V1 r V1
N r r N N O O r r N N r
N N m N O O l0 00
,-i ri � ri ri ri o o ri ri ri a
rl N N N N N N N N N N
N N
io o rn rn m m io r �n o 0 0 o ti a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m rn r io r rn oo a ti o 0 0 o a ti o o �n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �n �n
l0 N l0 01 V1 O V1 V1 01 O O O O N r V1 V1 N V1 V1 V1 O O V1 V1 r N
r ti �n io ,� m oo m d o 0 0 �n N m N N a io io io 0 o io io io rn
l0 r V1 m m r ti V1 m V1 O O N V1 00 N N rl N N N a a N N N a
N N rl r rl m ti a ti l0 a N a rl N N
N m
00 0o m o rn io o rn ti o 0 0 o io �n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ti r o �n N oo m �n N �n o o r ti a o0 0o ti a a a N N a oo a N
rl V1 T N 00 O N 00 00 N O O Lr m N T n �n V1 V1 l0 O O O V1 V1 O 01 Lr a
N o r a a o0 o i
0o ,� r rn io �n N N ,� m m m a a m N o0
m m ,-i oo m m m vi ri io a ri ri o N N
m a
r r ti ti oo r oo m O O O O r orn �n �n �n �n �n �n o O r, r, O r
N a �n a r ti ti ti o0 0 0 0 oo � r r r r r r �n �n r r �n N
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
�n N m �n io io r a m �n n o r m o m m oo rn rn rn N N rn m io 0
m a m �n io a m ti io N o o m N rn m m ti m m m �n �n m en ti �n
�n m N ,� m io io 0o N 01 io m �n io m m
r N V1 r ti ti W ti ti 0 0 0 0 ti N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�n o 00 0o m
r o0 o l 0l c
m rn r io rn ti o 0 0 0 00 Ln o o Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
io ri io rn vi ri vi o rn o 0 0 0 � m vi vi ri vi vi vi o o vi vi � ri
r ti �n io ,� io 0o r ti o 0 0 �n o0 o N N a io io io 0 o io io io rn
N N rl r m m m a ti l0 a N r V1 N N
N m
N � N
N �
m io
ti � ti N O
ti ti
ti
c
E
z
v
_
LL
z
V
N
o
m
O h0
cW
W N
ip in Q
n
LL
O >
m N N O
�2 u
O
N m
cO
Z
C \
O O F
°
U C7
'o c
w °
o Q .
Q
W
O Y > O
> O
++ O
E N N V
,��, O -
>
o
¢ a f0 E
>
E a
3
o ° o E
E
N
p a U 2E 12 c
Q
c '� c .� ''� 0 0
76
9 U O N
a m
N o
y '0� '73 0
N
Y m
m l
v ao
J
o
J
y
C
'E
-O > _6 d O
u
Q
-� v v
K m N N
v N m
Q m p m 0
V
E >
L
y C
d 2 O V1
N L
M
"
W
Cw
—02VV
�> W W
Uowwo
a m> J LL Z
OC
ti
ip in Q
n
LL
�2 u
a
-
E 0 z
N
m
N
N Q
- 3 W
76
N
O
J
p
J
y
6
N m
Q
Z
V
L
3
"
W
Cw
p
Q
°
O
mtm�L
m
3
O~
v
'•
to
n m c
F
>
E
ov `
i°
m 3
" `° a3i 3 +°� v o i
z
v o
o
N
i c o
~�` u
v
i
v `�' o o 0
m o
' C
bq \>
O V s Z C C
U
j
>
l7
�
p
o
> vi U U
Z
a c0 c0 c0 O E lJ l7
F
OC LL F�� Z w Z Z
r`
8
N
01 N io io
ti
rn�
io
ao m ti o 0 0 0 0 o N
o0
m
.+
N
1n
o ti
o N
ce
r
rn a m o 0 0 0 0 o n
m 1n N 1n o 0 1n o o ti
.+
� m
ti n io m a a n l0
rn n n m rn rn io m
N
m
l0
N O
r
N W h h V1 O N O V1 h
a
V1
l0
m N
h m
T
l0
V1 h N m N O N O N V1
T l0 h m O h O a 0 W
N
N
Q
V} V} V} V}
m
N
to
N m N N rl O N to
ri
f
O
ti W T T
m V1 h l0
N
N
N N
N
f
P.
m N V1
m N N rl m m N T
N
F
ut
V}
V} V}
V}
V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V}
to to
Z
O
N l0
h
ti W l0 O O O O O O a
N
00
�
w
w
rn
a
rn io
W N
a
l0
ti rn a o 0 0 0 0 0 1n
m 0 0 V1 O O V1 O O a
o
' N
�
Q
io
T
V1 m
W
T l0 W N V1 O h O V1 m
N
r
N l0
to
O N m ti h O m O h h
M
F
ut
"q
Z
T h V1 ti
to 0 0 0 0 0 0 to
tO
�
w
u
ti to m ti
n rn imo
a fV fV
ti rn ao 0 ao
c c 0 c 0 c 0 cl
Ol
.�
m
w
O W T
N N
l0 N V1 N h h V1 l0
m
m
l0 T
W
ti W l0 O O O O O O a
N
w
w
ao
a
ao o
a ti
n
O
ti rn a o 0 0 0 0 0 1n
m 0 0 V1 O O V1 O O a
m
N
r`i
io r`i
,-i
rn io 0o r`i � o r o 1n m
v
w
.�
m
N n
m
o N m ti n o m o n n
o
m
U
m oo m N m m m N
m
Q
m a m ti
ao ao ao 0 o n rn
�
F
p
N T N
rl N
h l0 l0 N W W V1 V1
a
00
l6
07
m
w
H
V} V} V} V}
V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V}
to
ao io m n
n ti o 0 0 0 o ao
V1
N T
l0
N W ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti
I�
�
w
U
N N m W
l0 N W
N N N
l0
T,
h 1 ,
T, N
to
ti
,
N T T O O O O O O ti
l0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W
, , , , , , , , , ,
tO
' Ol
,
�
Z
a
N a
N
W l0 l0 V1 O O V1 O O O
N
m
w
l0
N
to a
V1
l0
W
N N r N to O h O V1 N
N N rl N a N to
Op
M
V} V} V} V}
V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V}
to
Z
n m o o
n n N o 0 0 o
io
�o
Z
ao r 1n ti
l7
1n
�o
O
ti to m ti
a a N 0 0 0 0
0
w
n 0, io cvi
ti o0 00 0 0 0 0
00
.-i
G
h N N N
O W T
W
m m V1 O O O
l0 V1 V1 N h h V1
T
m
N
Ol
�
m
ti ti
m
N
a
o N
io
a rn rn o 0 0 0 0 o N
o0
Z
ao
1n
io N
io io
l
ao
1n a a o c o c 0
,� N o 1n 1n o o a
m
a;
vi o
vi
a o vi � vi o r`i o vi a;
ui
a
n
or m
a
ti o n oo N o io O N oo
m
Q
m
1n
W
m
N
1n N r m
N m N N T rl N
n
f
07
0
6 o o
a
=
c c c
.� .
¢
H
W
oc
o
p p p
a a a
V}
V} V}
V}
V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V}
to to
�
41
W
f
ti
m n
ti
m m n o 0 0 0 0 o m
a
}
LL
m
rn
rn e m
a
ti
m
m rn m o o c c 0 O O O io
01 N ,� 1n 1n o o m
n
io
u
Z
W
m
�
N
V1
O W
N O
N
r
N h rl m N O N O N N
m a N m N N N T
a
(p
(D
—
m
m
N N
(p
Z
Q
F
O O m
bA >
Z
O
NN>
m N N o 7
> O
�' is z ? > '
U
oc o
en o
V}
V} V}
V}
V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V}
V} to
Vt
v i u� 2 2 W
m
n 1n
1n
ti io N o 0 0 0 0 o rn
a
Z
p
O
1n
ti ao
�
N 1n ti O O O O O O oo
a
O
l0
r ti
to
N T T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
' tO
v v
'�
E o
o 0 >>
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
G
c. o E E
a
l0
N a
V1 a
N
l0
ao N io 1n o 0 1n o o io
N to r N to O r O to a
m
O
�
Op
F
ul
4Y O N N
a m m
N
N
N
M
Z
a+ 0 0
E
E ° o o
a
O
of oy v1 U U
N
O V O w w 0 l7 l7
u
> w w
y> 2 J LL Z Z Z
O
w
O
o
0
0
0
6 om
u
¢
°
. ° o
W
oc
p
a
o p
a
l0
Z
N
LL
m
�
�
N
C
o Q Z
O
O � W
m
C
o N N
z
O
> Q d
W
�
m O N
m COO E '^ m
W
E E
O
F J N m>> 41 l0 z
y
a
L
>
o p 3 Q N E o 0
U
¢
2
O
i o
j o w >O ¢
t (7
2 Q p —O S 2
�_
W
u
y
V i 2 2 w a E
�=
9
3 iL
E O O O
° v
Z
o
a
d a ¢ m v F
.� v
m
z
E>
= E E E c
Q
E o
u
p
- o o o E v v >`� ¢
G
c
.�
s 0
.n'�
'i o o m m 0 7
o >> o- v U
E o
m
°�
a p o
on c a° o E E E> oc
N m
O
0 C
O 2
-
- i
O
G w N w a o p p> 3
°o
> u L E
W
m f0O O Q
N
m O C C
E
O
N
U U
_
_ [2
O
O bA :.� :.� N LL
'>
c
l0
'� >
l0 N
w a
y 2 LL z z z m
o
O
OC
N
01 N io io
m rn m o 0 0 0 1n
N
1n m C cn n
ioo 0
1n N c 0 c o c 0 c o 1n
rn rn o 1n a
m
.+
N O V1 h
T h h h V1 V1 V1 h
N
m rn m 1n
a o 1n
ti n io m a a n l0
rn n n m rn rn io m
N
m
Q
rl N N
to
n
O
f
V} V} V} V}
V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V}
to
Z
l0 n ti m
N O O O O O O m
tO
ti W T T
m V1 h l0
h
Omam ti 0
T to o O Oo O m T
m N
Q
N a r
a 01 o6 N V1 V1 V1 01
P.
m N V1
m N N rl m m N T
N
F
ut
Z
T T W l0
N O O O O O O m
00
�
w
w
V1 h ti V1
oo rn m ti
hfV 0 0 0 0 0 o 0
o rn 4 o
a 1n rn
1!1
o
a rn or`i vi vi vi rn
o
io
Vt
w
1n a rn
m N N rl m m N T
ti
Ol
N
U
m
w
T h V1 ti
to 0 0 0 0 0 0 to
tO
�
w
u
ti to m ti
n rn imo
a fV fV
ti rn ao 0 ao
c c 0 c 0 c 0 cl
Ol
.�
m
w
O W T
N N
l0 N V1 N h h V1 l0
m
tO
N
ul
Z
l7
w
1n rn m n
a ao N o 0 0 o a
.�
io 0 o n
r 1n m 1n
io io m o 0 0 o io
io ,� a 1n o 0 o n
a
m
m oo m N m m m N
m
Q
m a m ti
ao ao ao 0 o n rn
oo
F
p
N T N
rl N
h l0 l0 N W W V1 V1
a
00
l6
07
H
V} V} V} V}
V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V}
to
ao io m n
n ti o 0 0 0 o ao
�
}
n m c
1n rn rn a
N h N 1n o n
c c 0 c o 0
n
.+
U
Z
W
N N m W
l0 N W
N N N
N T V1 h V1 V1 V1 T
O W W m O O h T
N N N to
CO
00
O
:7
Z
F
Z
O
U
V} V} V} V}
V} V} V} V} V} V} V} V}
to
n m o o
n n N o 0 0 o
io
�o
Z
ao r 1n ti
a o 0 0 0 0 0
1n
�o
O
ti to m ti
a a N 0 0 0 0
0
.ti
n 0, io cvi
ti o0 00 0 0 0 0
00
.-i
G
h N N N
O W T
W
m m V1 O O O
l0 V1 V1 N h h V1
T
m
N
Ol
�
m
ti ti
m
N
F
ul
Z
O
u
O
o 0 0
0
6 o o
=
c c c
.� .
¢
W
oc
o
p p p
a a a
H
�
C
O
�
41
W
f
LL
m
�
�
N
�
G
—
o
LL
O
Q
V =
O O m
bA >
NN>
m N N o 7
> O
�' is z ? > '
oc o
en o
U
u° E
O Q !° c O F
Vt
v i u� 2 2 W
F 9 > O
E O O O H
p
O
a ¢ a °
>
o
c °
a. E
- EE ¢
°o c c
.LL ° .� o E
v v
'�
E o
o 0 >>
c. o E E
a°
o
o o o
4Y O N N
a m m
> 0
l0 O U
C p > t N N
m m° l0 C C
a+ 0 0
E
E ° o o
a
c v1 v1
++ ++
of oy v1 U U
N
O V O w w 0 l7 l7
> w w
y> 2 J LL Z Z Z
O
w
N
� 1
8
M m to N O O O O C to m O l 0 0 0 0 0 0 to C
N
O m O O m a a O O� O O O� O O p
N i, l c -I O, O, O C O, of M, O, O, �, O, O, O, of O C n
a
, , , ,
, ,
of of O O c -I of c -I O N M O n O M
M1
w.
O M� a M .-I N l3 a O N N n N n
m w
C I� Ol �a N M Ol N N S
Q
C ul l0 c -I C l0 N C I� m C l0 O
�
�
M
N
Z
.tiC M to O O O O m m O m o o o o o o m m
n
M O: N O O N of N .--I O to � O O
of O l Ol l3 O O O O M O O l0 O O O O Ol Ol
n
Q
Q
�(1 �(1 .ti l0 Ol n n C O N of O�� m O m
O M Oo O N M N N O N O
CK l3
N
Z
w m mo o o o �(1 Ol O m o o o o o o m of
O
w
.ti n C m O O� O O of O,, 0 0 0� O l �
rn CK N l0 O N l0 O O o, Lr! O Ol l0
p
M
W
Oi m mOo Oo c -I N l0 ON of O m O N
M1
O O I� M n N O N M
CK
N
U
>
oo
K
w
n of of O O O O c -I n O m o o o o o o m N
M
U
M m w O O O O c -I n O l0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 C
rn rn 0 0 I, l0 C M O I� M O O
n
>
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Ol to to to O O to M M O O O O O O C n
w
N N
m of O m Ol N N ' O- n O Oo O a of
M C �(1 of M C .--I C l0 � c -I C � � C of � al Lr!
to
V
m ti of
�
Z
�
O OC O o o o �(1 to O O N o o o o o o N N
N
N to N O O O O O N O m� O O O O Ol l0
N Ol to O O O O .ti of N O l0 Ol O O
p
Q
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
M M I� O O n C of n O O Ol O n C
N m
M l0 n n O O l0 M C C O of of
w w
D7 D7 O N N Ol N N N M l(1 O C N M .--I I� Ol M
Q
m C l0 O C �(1 .ti C C �(1 l0 �(1 Ol �
N
� � � � O
N
m
�
�
O
N
O O O .ti Oof 0 0 0 0 0 0 of m
N
N m N o o a o o, o o o o o a
of Ol n O O l0 O M Ol O O O l0 O Ol
a
U
of N N O O C O m �(1 O L(1 L(1 of O n N
N
O O to O M .-I l(1 N I� N l(1 n C
to O I� n Ol Ol n N of l0 N n C C
N
A
O
Z
.ti c -i C c -I .ti Oo M
N
Z
O
U
o�n �n m o o o o �n �o m o m o o o 0 0 o rn m
o
Z
O
� to I� N O O O O O N O of 0 0 0 0 0 0 of -w
f!1 Ol CK O O O O c -I of l O M O O O O O O M O
F-
� M� M O O I� l0 C of N O� M 0 0 0 .--i O Ol N
-I
O1
U
m to to to O O to M w O N O O O Ol O c O
.--� of O ul � ul 01 N N N M O� n O .--� O Ol
O
m vi Oo m c -i m o m vi � vi rn
a
F-
0 O
u
O
o
Z
�o
N W o o N a P% 00 ri
_
w w w w w w w
u
W
16
cc
o
'O v W
J
U a
a.
O W
Z
o
o a
a v O p
Z
w
t v v Z
O
2 Q
Z y
W C O
o
u coy Q
W N O C
z
Y a a a a
c O N V 0
N N N N
}
F
W E O. •y 3 O.
—
uQLL
U �y OJ v
'^ c —
E v Q v v v c y r�o —
w U
v W
Q
LL
IA w N Q a a a Y �i
Z C O
E O C N M "O "O O
ate+ ate+ ate+ ate+
i
1 d � (j v O.
"O
y LL O OJ O O J
Q Co w w
L O L
Z LL Z 3 c E
a m m a a a N O w o o c7
Y Y Z Z z Z SOA - v
i Y C m '2 "O Y Y Y ._
U MN
C' n) N O - N
C
Q d o. D OJ
a �a ° `m v
o o mm I' m
Z °J a '� LL> a a a c c v
w u U u u°
C L N i bA +' f0 f0 f0 C Vl C '� •'
v um f0 f0 f0
v o v v v� c c c 'u
of0a
a a E v a
a L O Y d C C 'i
N C .0
f0 � bA
r a r r r r a ° N
'w
J
0J d J v v v
a z r = rK a
k
§
§
§
§§
�j
§�
mLu}
Lu qm
=GE
22§
�2
kIL
\IL
2
z
§
w
f
E a /
mE
`9
\0
-
®-0
=
\
e{
\
g
\
o o/
/\\
M-
n
n
0
]\\/)
/
°§e°
o/oo)\\\
@
~
§
q
a
/
y
\
§
°
LO
\
72-
E
n= /
/
�a
§
go
§
\
\
as
_
/
6
-
11
)
j)
E
_-
=
2
co
g j
<
-Fu
D
{
_
)
\
/
2
E
E
>�\
_
E0-0
2
m�jƒ�-3«f§«
#rEE��-�--2
#�
23322§®r2)a)a)
E
-t2
Cpl==EEcELmc
5)22co000z00
}/))2
I
o
�
$y
§((§ % gR
LO eod§ %o 0
6 o
f0 \ x x x
\Q 4\ o\ o\ o\
Lo \
�
0-0 ( ( ( (
\3 od od od od
0-0
/\§f(((
oooou uuu
§§2y§%
§§§
oe oeoe
oe
\
§( \( ( ( (
w* y§ d d d
°oo
a ° a a a a
e S S S S
/w °d °d °d °d
®j LL ®� ®2 ®2
me wlm..,¥ , ,
\22<)U) ƒ{ ƒ{
&� 2-0 (.&f f
/ ! I %
D E c2co
\ \§)D ®\ (\\ § |q ) I / I ( I §�
/
|
I = I
\ \ \ \ \
U) m m m m
/
w
OV)
W W_
W J
V U
�a
UW
= W
N d H
m
J 0O
m � �
"a
aU' W
W (9
J a
z
p�
U)
76
O—
00
O
O
(h
N
O
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
C:)
LO
C:)
'76
O
O
N
Lm
O
LO
0
0
O
H
Q
(O
co
O
0
O
(0
(7
(O
Ln
m
O
LO
�
0
�
O
0
(h
L(7
m
m
p 0
0
Na0
N
a0
N
D
LN
O
CD
N
Q
d C
(�
Z�
P
O
tm O
m
f4
a)
2
E
U
+
0
O)
c
a)
E
E
U
U
o
2
m
J
a)
j
..
O
O
H
,C
C
in
o
mU
-�O
c
`m
o
E
E_
m
o
m
m
U
U
m
o
D
0
0
o
'E
E
c
E
E
c
oo
o
a>
'c
m
—
0
o
J
0
o
a>
(n
E
o
O
U
a>
z(D
a>
O=
o
o
(n
o
s
a>
T
-O
.�
J
O
of
O(D
U
�U).
E U
7 Q
z �
a3 z
0
_ —
E O
c +
az �
� U
� a)
m
2
U
Q
z
c �o
0 O
E
E
7
Cl)
TABLE B-3
TUSTIN LEGACY
DEMOGRAPHICS ADJUSTMENTS SPECIFIC TO
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FACILITIES
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Per Person Hours of Potential Parks and Open Space Usage per Week.
Potential
Recreation Number of Work
User of Facilities Hours Work Day Days per Week
Resident, non -working 12 5
Resident, working 2 5
Employee (Commercial/Industrial) 2 5
1. Total Hours of Potential Parks and Open Space Facilities Usage per Week. (Single Family)
3. Total Hours of Potential Parks Usage per Week. (Commercial)
Potential Recreation
Employees per Potential Recreation Hours/Week
Type Of Employee 1,000 Square Feet [3] Hours/Week per Person per Household
Commercial Employee
Potential
Potential Recreation
Number of
Recreation
Hours Per
Weekend Days
Hours Per Week
Weekend Day
Per Week
Per Person
12
2
84
12
2
34
0
2
10
3. Total Hours of Potential Parks Usage per Week. (Commercial)
Potential Recreation
Employees per Potential Recreation Hours/Week
Type Of Employee 1,000 Square Feet [3] Hours/Week per Person per Household
Commercial Employee
Potential Recreation
1.42
Number Per
Potential Recreation
Hours/Week
Type Of Resident
Household [1, 2]
Hours/Week per Person
per Household
Resident, non -working
1.55
84
130
Resident, working
1.70
34
58
Total
3.25
188
2. Total Hours of Potential Parks Usage
per Week. (Multi -Family)
Potential Recreation
Number Per
Potential Recreation
Hours/Week
Type Of Resident
Household [1, 2]
Hours/Week per Person
per Household
Resident, non -working
1.34
84
113
Resident, working
1.39
34
47
Total
2.73
160
3. Total Hours of Potential Parks Usage per Week. (Commercial)
Potential Recreation
Employees per Potential Recreation Hours/Week
Type Of Employee 1,000 Square Feet [3] Hours/Week per Person per Household
Commercial Employee
Retai I/Comme rcia I/Other
1.42
10 14
Office
3.08
10 31
Hotel
3.48
10 35
Senior Congregate Care
3.48
10 35
Health Club/Theater
0.87
10 9
Total
4. Total Hours of Potential Parks Usage per Week. (Industrial)
Potential Recreation
Employees per Potential Recreation Hours/Week
Type of Employee 1,000 Square Feet [3] Hours/Week per Person per Household
Industrial Employee 2.15 10 21
Total 2.15 21
[1] U.S. Census Bureau, 2000: Table P27 "Place of Work For Workers 16 years and Over" and DP1 'Profile of General Demographic Characteristics"
[2] City of Tustin General Plan, 2001
[3] Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), research contained in Employment
Density Study Summary Report by The Natelson Company, Inc., October 31, 2000
16
TABLE C-1
TUSTIN LEGACY
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
TRAFFIC GENERATION RATE ASSUMPTIONS
Residential:
Land Use Category
Trip Generation Rate
units
Single -Family Detached
9.57
dwelling unit
Single -Family Attached
8.00
dwelling unit
Multi -Family Attached
6.63
dwelling unit
Senior Housing Attached
3.48
dwelling unit
Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Category
Trip Generation Rate
units
General Commercial
30.74
1,000 s.f.
Community Commercial
68.17
1,000 s.f.
Neighborhood Commercial
111.82
1,000 s.f.
General Office
13.27
1,000 s.f.
Office Park
9.55
1,000 s.f.
Hotel (350 rooms)
8.23
rooms
Senior congregate Care Facility
6.1
1,000 s.f.
Theater
1.25
seats
Health Club
32.93
1,000 s.f.
Industrial Park
8.11
1,000 s.f.
17
TABLE D-1
TUSTIN LEGACY
TRANSPORTATION AND SIGNAGE ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY
Re\Ased October 6, 2017
TOTAL AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS BY AREA
Commercial:
Trip
D -1A
0LLight
24,362 226,654
%of Total ADT's
0.33%
0
............_�..................
Industrial 8.11
Residential Land Use
Generation
0
D -2C
D-3
D-5
D-613
D -7A
Totals
Category
Rate
South
n7l
0
0
0
2,926
8,644
Comm. Commercial
68.17
(ADTs)
Residential:
0
Low
9.57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,547,690
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Medium
g
0
0
0
0
218
1,917
2,135
0
0
0
0
1, 744
15, 337-
17,080
Medium High
6.63
�.. ......................1,296.....
... ....
... .... .... .......................
... .... .... .0 ... .......................
... .0 ... .... .... ....
..................0. ... .... .... .... ...
... ........1,408 ... .... .... .
018,198
743
8,592
0
0
0
0
9, 335
Senior Housing
3.48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Subtotal Residential
Res: Units
112
1,296
0
.......................................................................................................................
0
218
1,917
3,543
ADTs
743
8,592
0
0
1,744
15,336
26,415
Commercial:
0 ................................................................................................0......................................................................................
0
0LLight
24,362 226,654
%of Total ADT's
0.33%
0
............_�..................
Industrial 8.11
General Comm.
30.74
0
0
0
0
0
95,200
281,200
$223.60
$223.60
0
n7l
0
0
0
2,926
8,644
Comm. Commercial
68.17
....._0.................................0................................0..............................0.................................0....................................0..................
0
0
0
0
0
0
Neighborhood Comm.
111.82
0
0
1,547,690
0
0
0
1,547,690
0
0
0
0
0
173,063
GeneralOffice
13.27
................_0....................._420,000...........0.................................................
........................................
........................................
0
5,5730
il
0
0
5,573
Office Park
9.55
0
018,198
0
0
718,198
0
0,
859
0
0
6,859
Hotel
8 23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CongregateCare
6.1
................_0................................0..............................._0................................0..............................0.....................1,000,000......
1,000,000
0
0
0
0
0
6,100
6,100
Theater
1.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Health Club
32.93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Subtotal Commerical
quare Fee
r
0
606,000
1,547,690
718,198
0
1,095,200
3,967,088
A DTs
0
11,291
173,063
6,859
0
9,026
200,239
Industrial:
0 ................................................................................................0......................................................................................
0
0LLight
24,362 226,654
%of Total ADT's
0.33%
0
............_�..................
Industrial 8.11
10.75% 100.00%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total ADT's
743
19,884 173,063 6,859
1,744
24,362 226,654
%of Total ADT's
0.33%
8.77% 76.36% 3.03%
0.77%
10.75% 100.00%
Allocated Transportation Cost
$166,033
$4,445,871 $38,696,086 $1,533,597
$389,951
$5,447,340 $50,678,877
transportation cost per ADT
$223.60
$223.60 $223.60 $223.60
$223.60
$223.60
II. Proposed Facilities
Facility Type
Facility Cost
Cost per
ADT
Road/Bridge Improvements
$47,341,877
$208.87
Traffic Signals
$3,337,000
$14.72
Total Facility Cost
$50,678,877
$223.60
Less:
Other Financing Contributions
$0
Total Cost to be Allocated:
1 $50,678,877
IK
TABLE C-2
TUSTIN LEGACY
DRAINAGE ALLOCATION METHDOLOGY
I. Runoff Rate Coefficient Calculation
Land Use Category
Runoff Rate
Coefficient, "C"
Net Acreage
Total Unit Runoff, "Q/I" [1 ]
Low Density (0-7 Units per Acre)
0.50
0.0
0.0
Medium Density (8-15 Units per Acre)
0.60
80.1
48.1
Medium High Density (15-25 Units per Acre)
0.80
55.8
44.6
Senior Housing Attached
0.80
0.0
0.0
General Commercial
1.00
23.1
23.1
Community Commercial
1.00
0.0
0.0
Neighborhood Commercial
1.00
106.3
106.3
General Office
1.00
20.2
20.2
Office Park
1.00
53.0
53.0
Hotel
1.00
0.0
0.0
Senior Congregate Care
1.00
56.0
56.0
Theater
1.00
0.0
0.0
Health Club
1.00
0.0
0.0
Light Industrial
1.00
0.0
0.0
Tota 1
394.50
351.3
II. Proposed Facilities
Facility Type Facility Cost Cost Per Unit Runoff Cost per Net Acre
Drainage Improvements $51,554,918 146,755 130,684
Water Quality Mitigations $0 0 0
Total $51,554,918 146,755 130,684
III. Allocation Rate per Unit or 1,000 Square Feet
Land Use Category
Runoff Rate
Coefficient, "C"
Allocation Rate
per Acre
Cost Financed
Low Density (0-7 Units per acre)
0.50
$73,377
$0
Medium Density (8-15 Units per acre)
0.60
$88,053
$7,053,030
Medium High Density (15-25 Units per Acre)
0.80
$117,404
$6,551,129
Senior Housiing Attached
0.80
$117,404
$0
General Commercial
1.00
$146,755
$3,390,033
Community Commercial
1.00
$146,755
$0
Neighborhood Commercial
1.00
$146,755
$15,600,022
General Office
1.00
$146,755
$2,964,444
Office Park
1.00
$146,755
$7,777,998
Hotel
1.00
$146,755
$0
Senior Congregate Care
1.00
$146,755
$8,218,262
Theater
1.00
$146,755
$0
Health Club
1.00
$146,755
$0
Light Industrial
1.00
$146,755
$0
$51,554,918
[1 ] Based on the Rational Method for calculating runoff, Q=CIA, where Q=run-off in cubic feet per second, C= run-off rate coefficient,
1=rainfall intensity in inches per hour and A= drainage area in acres. Unit run-off is defined as run-off per inch of rainfall intensity, or Q/I=CA,
which is used to determine the relative contribution to total run-off by the various land uses.
Revised August 28, 2017
19
Cn
W
C F
N Q J
U
W J LL
J Z W
(D
F U) Q
� Z
F Q
CD
Lo I-
V CD
r
N
N
N N
Cl)O N
o r
o 0w
o
LO
LO V
coLO 0
C0 a O
co
N� N
Cb
d)
Cl)
N
V
CO
N
t/)
0
O
O O
N
co
M p
O
O
0 o
V
�
N
Cb
60 Cl)
Ln
O
Ln
CD
Cfl
N M
co
Cfl
O
Ln
69
c0
N O)
N
CA
r-
r
Cfl
LD N
Cb
Cfl
Q
(D
C
CD N
M
M -o
CN
D
O N
Lo (D
O r-
o
69
d
fl
b
N
o
Cfl
m
CD
Lo I-
D
I-
N N
Efl
o
o)
0)
p
Lo
I-
-I-
I -
69
e»
M m
N
M O
O O
p
I-
V
N
o)
-
CO
O CD
v
V
N
NN
CD
69
m
LD
D
d) �_
fl
O O
N
fl
Q L
Q )
M N
V
Cfl
�a
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
O
M
4�
O41o-
L,v
L,v
L,v
L,v
L,v
L,v
L,v
L,
L,
Aa
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
a
(6
V
Q
CO
CD
CO
CD
CO
CD
CO
CD
CO
CD
CO
CD
CO
CD
CO
CD
CO
CD
O Q
M
o
oo 't
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
LLo
LLo
U Q
O
r
fA
fA
I�
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
Q
CA
Cfl
Cfl
Cfl
Cfl
Cfl
Cfl
Cfl
Cfl
Cfl
a)
N
U
Q
Q
VI
U
a)
C
C
�
U
a)
Q
CO
N
R
Q
Z
o
W
co
.�
mo
E
C)
E
a)
m
n
O
E
o
-o
w
Cn
o
m
Y
m
o
E
E
a)
.v
O
m
L
o
O
mod
a)
o
O
L
-o
J E
L
a)
a)
U
w
N
o
a)
-
L
o
O
a)
CD
a)
Z
a)
(7
O
O
T
a)
U)
L
F
a)
T
-o
m
J
U
CD
Lo I-
V CD
r
N
N
N N
Cl)O N
o r
o 0w
o
LO
LO V
coLO 0
C0 a O
co
N� N
TABLE C-3
TUSTIN LEGACY
DRY UTILITIES ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY
I. Demand Ratio
Land Use Category Demand Ratio Net Acreage
Low Density (0-7 Units per Acre)
1.00
0.0
Medium Density (8-15 Units per Acre)
1.00
80.1
Medium High Density (15-25 Units per Acre)
1.00
55.8
General Commercial
1.00
23.1
Neighborhood Commercial
1.00
106.3
General Office
1.00
20.2
Office Park
1.00
53.0
Hotel
1.00
0.0
Senior Congregate Care
1.00
56.0
Theater
1.00
0.0
Health Club
1.00
0.0
Light Industrial
1.00
0.0
Total
$20,089.21
394.5
II. Proposed Facilities
Cost Per
Facility Type Facility Cost Net Acreage
Utility Backbone All Phases (All Utilities) $7,925,192 $20,089
Total $7,925,192 $20,089.21
III. Allocation Rate per Unit or 1,000 Square Feet
Land Use Category
Allocation Rate
per Acre
Cost Financed
Low Density (0-7 Units per Acre)
$20,089.21
$0
Medium Density (8-15 DU per Acre)
$20,089.21
$1,609,145
Medium High Density (15-25 DU per Acre)
$20,089.21
$1,120,978
General Commercial
$20,089.21
$464,061
Neighborhood Commercial
$20,089.21
$2,135,483
General Office
$20,089.21
$405,802
Office Park
$20,089.21
$1,064,728
Hotel
$20,089.21
$0
Senior Congregate Care
$20,089.21
$1,124,996
Theater
$20,089.21
$0
Health Club
$20,089.21
$0
Light Industrial
$20,089.21
$0
$7,925,192
[1] Based on input from various utilities, no rule of thumb or generalization can be made that relates the relative
cost pper acre of dry utility infrastructure to demand or land use categories.
Revised September 21, 2017
21
U)
W_
F-
F -
LU HW
J
Z
F-
U) U)
Z)
H
W'
W
0-
q O
LU
W
Q
Q
z
Q
Q
W
W'
Q
N
N
,It
f/1
r-
00
(0
— O
V
M
O
N 00
N
O r
0
O�
0
O pCl)
00 (0
O
In N
In
M V
N
vi
O Cl)
1
O Ln
N
M�
In p
(O N
In
�
V3
V3
V3
O
U)
V3
V3
Q
(O 00
M 00
O
InM
M
_
V3
I�
(D
N
�
(O N
N
_
V3
m
�
M
N N
V �
r d)
N
V3
N
00
N
O
MV
Lo O
ER
M m
00
M N
Lo
Q D
O r
N
V3
N 00
rV
N 00
N
00
N
O
N 00
Q
Q
O
�
(O
V3
O N
N 0
V3
O
m
Q L
0(O
Q O
U
N
M
M r
�a
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
4
w �
w �
w ,
w �
w �
w �
w �
w
� o�
o�
o
� o�
o�
o�
o�
o
o
o
o
o
u)
u)
u)
u)
u)
u)
u)
u)
u)
u)
u)
u)
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0)
4
W' 0)
O Q
N
d)
00
O
N
d)
00
O
N
d)
00
O
N
d)
00
O
N
d)
00
O
N
d)
00
O
N
d)
00
O
N
d)
00
O
N
d)
00
O
N
d)
00
O
N
d)
00
O
N
d)
00
O
R 0)
0N
O 0_
O
ER
O
N
ER
O
N
ER
O
N
ER
O
N
ER
O
N
ER
O
N
ER
O
N
ER
O
N
ER
O
N
ER
O
N
ER
O
N
ER
Q
N
U
Q
d 0)
�
N
U
R C
0I
LO
R N
O
N
R
Q Q
U
U
' - >
R
° E U
H
oo
E
L
�j a�
E
J
w 0)
O�
O O
U L O O
a� E E
R m �° R a U
a
N
N N
L
O N O U 0) O O R
N
w
J :E :E
E (9 z (7 O x U) H x
a J
O
�
O
U
�
N
N
I 7
Lu m O O co O O I— O Ln 0'o
O O O O p
V co V V co
(6 p CO N m I— o M p
F2 — N O co O r W
_Qc
u
I E
Z
Y m
O LO Co O O O O Co O O O O O
W
L � O O O) O m O
O V N_ CO O O
N N rO W O
Q 6 W t N O
E N O V O
Z co
W
� N
O (o (o (o (o r co co N N
O O O LO LO co M o o (O (O V
N O LO LO LO I-- I-- O O W W V V
!? O Co Co CO O O O O
O — o o o o o o o o o o o o
07 o
W
N
m �
� Q
U
(Y
N N
j W
O N
C ?
E
W U)
N EO
O
5 O
N �
? N
Q
Co O O O
co O O O M M M M O O N
Om M OLn O)O O)O CO CO
M I� O O O O
M N N— M M N N N
-O o M co o CO M co M o o) o o o LLo
U O V N O (O Co o) LO O I-_ O O O
69 LO (O 69 M N V V 69 I— 69 69 69 V
�p N M o Co m O O I—
I— W Ln Lo O N V V
jy M o Ln O N M
V N LO M (O N
U fA fA 69 69
o LO co o o o o co o o o o o
O O rn o rn o
� V N CO O O
N O W O
O V N O
O N LO V O
LL
N
Z
O m
U W
N
a
W
0
N
vi
O L�f1 4)
U (i I, N
W W
E N
3 6
M �
cN Q U)
O
0] 0
W
Q
F
U
LL
Y
� Y
m
U U
CO O O N O) O) N N N N CO
I,- W W O) V V (O (O V
O V V V CO CO O) V V
N O O O 69 M O) M V V NI'-
N N N N Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl
s� s� s� 69
OLO LO LO Co Co CO CO d) d) Lo Lo
O Co Co Co O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O
2
E U
�E
U E N
U E N
d2 m
d U CD
E 6 d d
U
a)
� j t 0 o -0
c 0)
n d U U
rnp?
dt d o y_
O �_`o(Dz(702cA�2in
C .m C U N C N (6
N N N
O
J U)
1 1 1 1 1 1
-O o M co o CO M co M o o) o o o LLo
U O V N O (O Co o) LO O I-_ O O O
69 LO (O 69 M N V V 69 I— 69 69 69 V
�p N M o Co m O O I—
I— W Ln Lo O N V V
jy M o Ln O N M
V N LO M (O N
U fA fA 69 69
o LO co o o o o co o o o o o
O O rn o rn o
� V N CO O O
N O W O
O V N O
O N LO V O
LL
N
Z
O m
U W
N
a
W
0
N
vi
O L�f1 4)
U (i I, N
W W
E N
3 6
M �
cN Q U)
O
0] 0
W
Q
F
U
LL
Y
� Y
m
U U
CO O O N O) O) N N N N CO
I,- W W O) V V (O (O V
O V V V CO CO O) V V
N O O O 69 M O) M V V NI'-
N N N N Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl Efl
s� s� s� 69
OLO LO LO Co Co CO CO d) d) Lo Lo
O Co Co Co O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O
M
N
(6
i
�E
U
U E N
d U CD
a)
E - d d
U
=0 o
m
U
m n d U
N ?
t N -C
N t!
E_ E_ `o(Dz(702cA�2in
N
N N N
O
J U)
I I I I I
TTTTT
M
N
TABLE D-4
TUSTIN LEGACY
PARK AND OPEN SPACE FACILITIES
FAIR SHARE ALLOCATION BY DEVELOPMENT AREA AND DEVELOPER
Residential Totals: $22,9i% $165,415 $U $U $44,641 $392,bU1 $/15,611
0.59%
Land Use Categories
Parcel
D -1A
D -2C
D-3
D-5
D-613
D -7A
Totals
0
Numbers
South
D-8
D -7B
3.6
82.2
Cost Allocation
$0
Land Use Categories
Allocation Rate
per Unit
$0
Residential:
$240.78
Units
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Low Density
Neighborhood Commercial
Square Feet
Cost Allocation
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
Medium Density
$20480
Units
0
0
0
0
218
1917
2,135
General Office
Square Feet
Cost Allocation
$0
$0
$0
$0
$44,647
$392,607
437,254
Medium High Density
$204.80
Units
112
1296
0
0
0
0
1,408
Office Park
Square Feet
Cost Allocation
$22,938
$265,425
$0
$0
$0
$0
288,363
Senior
$204.92
Units
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hotel
Square Feet
Cost Allocation
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
Residential Totals: $22,9i% $165,415 $U $U $44,641 $392,bU1 $/15,611
0.59%
Land Use Categories
Allocation Rate
per 1,000 sf
Commercial:
General Commercial
$1819
Square Feet
0
186,000
0
0
0
95,200
281,200
3.6
82.2
Cost Allocation
$0
$3,383,742
$0
$0
$0
$1,731,894
5,115,636
$1819
0
0
1,547,690
0
0
0
1,547,690
Neighborhood Commercial
Square Feet
Cost Allocation
$0
$0
$28,155,828
$0
$0
$0
28,155,828
$39.41
0
420,000
0
0
0
0
420,000
General Office
Square Feet
Cost Allocation
$0
$16,550,950
$0
$0
$0
$0
16,550,950
$39.41
0
0
0
718,198
0
0
718,198
Office Park
Square Feet
Cost Allocation
$0
$0
$0
$28,302,045
$0
$0
28,302,045
$44.62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hotel
Square Feet
Cost Allocation
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
$44.62
0
0
0
0
0
1,000,000
1,000,000
Senior Congregate Care
Square Feet
Cost Allocation
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$44,624,678
44,624,678
$11.12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Theater
Square Feet
Cost Allocation
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
Health Club
$11.12
Square Feet
00
0
0
0
0
0
Cost Allocation
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
Industrial
r$2:7 48
Square Feet
00
0
0
0
0
0
Cost Allocation
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
Commercial and Industrial Totals: 0 19,934,692 28,155,828 28,302,045 0 46,356,572 122,749,138
99.41%
Total Residential and Non -Residential: 22,938 20,200,117 28,155,828 28,302,045 44,647 46,749,179 123,474,754
Quimby Fee Credits [1]
Allocations -All Uses Totals by Development Area
Approximate Net Acreage
Fair Share Allocation per Net Acre
24
Revised October 6, 2017
$0
$22,938
$20,200,117
$28,155,828
$28,302,045
$44,647
$46,749,179
$123,474,754
3.6
82.2
106.3
53.0
14.5
134.9
394.5
$6,372
$245,744
$264,871
$534,001
$3,079
$346,547
Revised October 6, 2017