HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 LEGACY FAIR SHARE 08-15-05
Ð
AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Item
Reviewed: I /¡L.4/~
~ii~:~c:n:~:~tor ~~
9
MEETING DATE:
AUGUST 15, 2005
FROM:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
CHRISTINE A. SHINGLETON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
TO:
SUBJECT:
TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE FAIR SHARE ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
An analysis has been completed of the fair share contributions required of each
development area at the former MCAS Tustin as necessary to finance public facilities
needed to serve new development.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the Tustin Legacy
Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Analysis and instruct City Staff to utlize the fair
share allocations identified for specific development areas pursuant to contractual
agreements with developers at Tustin Legacy, conditions of entitlement approval for
specific development projects at the former base in both Tustin and Irvine and in any
and all property negotiations for disposition by the City of property at Tustin Legacy.
FISCAL IMPACT
The adoption of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Analysis will
assist in financing public facilities and mitigation required in Final Joint Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Reuse and Disposal of the
former MCAS Tustin (Final EIS/EIR) and needed to serve development at Tustin
Legacy.
BACKGROUND
Based on the Final EIS/EIR it was determined that development at the former base
would contribute to the need for certain backbone infrastructure located both on and off
the site, including Tustin Legacy roadway improvements, traffic and circulation
mitigation, domestic and reclaimed water, sewer telemetry, storm drains and flood
control channels retention and detention systems, and utility backbone systems
(electricity, gas, telephone, cable, telecommunications, etc.). The City acted as the lead
City Council Report
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Analysis
August 15,2005
Page 2
agency for both Tustin and Irvine in preparation of the Final EIS/EIR and both agencies
certified the document for their use.
Provisions of the Final EIS/EIR required all applicants for private development to enter
into an agreement to establish on a pro-rated or fair-share basis each development
area's required construction obligation or financial contribution toward development of
the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure.
The City originally produced in January of 2001 estimates of Tustin Legacy Fair Share
contributions with respect to development areas at Tustin Legacy. These estimates
which have now been further refined to account for changes in the MCAS Tustin Land
Use Plan as staff were directed to complete by the Tustin City Council in November of
2004 (i.e., elimination of the golf course and replacement with open space) and to also
include costs associated with new flood control and water quality requirements, other
environmental mitigation requirements. related to development at the former MCAS
Tustin, and the escalation in construction costs that have occurred since 2000.
Since the City also retains ownership of a large portion of the development area and
had to move forward on projects such as the WL Homes (John Laing) Tustin Field I and
II projects and the Vestar/Kimco, loP. (Vestar) project due to significant financial
considerations, contractual obligations on each of these development sites resulted in
the City previously establishing fair share obligations for these development project
sites earlier, and transferring a portion of the increase in obligations for Fair Share
contributions to the master developer footprint portion of the Tustin Legacy project. No
portion of such transfer of obligations has been imposed on properties purchased from
the federal government by Marble Mountain Partners, LLP (MMP) and entitled in both
Irvine and Tustin. In addition, the adjusted Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair
Share Analysis also credits the John Laing, MMPs and Vestar development sites for
certain contributions these development projects have either contractually committed to
or are required to make towards Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure improvements,
such as required Quimby Act park fees being paid, or contributions being made to the
Tustin Library Project.
The attached report provides a complete summary of facility costs, Fair Share
contribution amounts and demographic assumptions used in the consultants analysis
including a description of the Fair Share calculation tables and methodologies, and a list
of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share program. As indicated in the
report, the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Program will fund a total
City Council Report
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Analysis
August 15, 2005
Page 3
of $345,330,593 in transportation, drainage, dry utilities, park and open space, library
and fire facilities. Based on the report, the following are the proposed Fair Share
contributions for individual development areas:
Developer Cost Allocation Summaries
Development Areal Developer
Net
Fair Share Contribution
Columbus Square/MMP
Columbus Grove/MMP
Irvine parcel/MMP
Tustin Field I and II/John Laing
The District Nestar
Master Developer footprintITLCP'
$30,738,560
18,848,253
15,542,640
9,733,437
36,330,000
226,064,894
'smaller sub-areas are identified in the
reDort
Contribution per acre
$289,986
216,647
212,913
207,802
324,375
varies based on sub-area
and predominant uses
Under the terms of Tustin Legacy entitlement conditions, Disposition and Development
Agreement and other agreements the City has entered into with John Laing Homes and
Vestar, the Cooperative Agreement that the City has entered into with MMP and in any
future agreements (including those culminating from the City's property negotiations
with Tustin Legacy Community Partners [TLCP] within the master developer footprint),
the City will utilize the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Analysis as the
basis for establishing development contributions towards the Tustin Legacy Backbone
Infrastructure Fair Share program.
In addition to Fair Share contributions established by the Fair Share Analysis, the
financing of Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program will also include other
funding contributions made by developers pursuant to any entitlement conditions or any
voluntary contributions towards the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program
made by a developer (for instance, John Laing Homes is committed to a $1,969,718
Quimby Act park fee contribution and has made a $1,000,000 library project
contribution; Vestar is making a $1,082,000 library project contribution), escalation of
costs for improvements likely to be constructed by TLCP, and other funding sources.
City Council Report
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Analysis
August 15, 2005
Page 4
The Fair Share Analysis, however, is really an identified funding obligation required by
each developer and has nothing to do with actual responsibilities for construction of
Tustin Backbone Infrastructure improvements. The assignment of construction
responsibilities would occur pursuant to either entitlement conditions, CFD Advance
Reimbursement agreements, Disposition and Development Agreements, or other
funding agreements entered into with each developer. The program would permit
developers to obtain a credit or reimbursement of their fair share obligation towards the
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program were such credits and reimbursements
are warranted and appropriate as approved by City staff.
The criteria for obtaining credits/reimbursements would the presence of an agreement
between a developer and the City which ensures a developer's funding of a Tustin
Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program listed improvement or any additions to the
approved Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program list approved by the City ( an
example is the Vestar Infrastructure Construction and Payment Agreement approved by
the City Council in conjunction with the Vestar escrow closing). If approved by the City,
any fee credit/reimbursement should equal the most current cost estimate of the
infrastructure item (as defined by annual cost review or other recent evaluation of cost),
regardless of cost to construct. Any reimbursements would be provided only as funds
become available and should not compromise the implementation schedule of priority
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program improvements already funded or
programmed to take place in the short range (ie. within a three year time frame).
It has been the intent of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Analysis
to provide an essential nexus between the imposition of the Fair Share contribution
towards the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure program and a legitimate
governmental interest (as stated in the Final EIS/EIR). It has been determined that the
Fair Share contributions as estimated are roughly proportionate to and reasonably
related to the impacts that are assumed to be caused by development at Tustin Legacy.
The Fair Share Analysis is also consistent and complies with the Cooperative
Agreement between the City and Marble Mountain Partners dated February 7,2005 and
the Agreement between the City and the Department of the Navy for the Conveyance of
a Portion of the former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin dated May 10, 2005 (the
"Conveyance Agreement") which requires that the City treat the buyer of Government
parcels at Tustin Legacy (Marble Mountain Partners) in the same manner as other
purchasers of property at Tustin Legacy.
City Council Report
Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Analysis
August 15,2005
Page 5
It is the intention to use the Fair Share Analysis in negotiating remaining agreements
for Tustin Legacy development. In the event, such agreements become difficult to
finalize, City staff may need to return with a required AB 1600 (Government Code
Section 66000 (c) ) fee implementation program for further City Council consideration.
~ki£ ~
Christine A. Shingleton
Assistant City Manager
S:IRDAICC reportlAgendaReport 8.15.05-Fair Share Contribution.doc
Attachment
!J II II> III "I<. &A.\'SOCJATloS,JNc.
Public Finance and Urban Economics
130 J Dove Street, Suite 600
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tel (949) 955-1500
Fax (949) 955-1590
www.taussig.com
MEMORANDUM
To:
Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager
Steve Runk
From:
Date:
Re:
Esperanza Prado
July 11,2005
Tustin Legacy Fair Share Analysis
Transmitted herewith are the preliminary results of the analysis undertaken by David Taussig &
Associates, Inc. ("DT A") to compute the fair share contribution for each development area
necessary to finance public facilities needed to serve new development resulting ITom the Tustin
Legacy Development Plan (the "Tustin Legacy Plan") as identified by the City of Tustin (the
"City"). This memorandum presents the results of our analysis and is organized as follows:
.
Sununary of Facilities Costs
Sununary of Fair Share Contribution Amounts
.
Demographic Assumptions Used in the Analysis
Description of Fair Share Calculation Tables and Methodology
David Taussig and Associates. Inc.
Page 2
SUMMARY OF FACILITIES COSTS
The City identified various facilities that are needed to meet increased demand for services
resulting !Tom new development within the City limits as a result of the Tustin Legacy Plan.
These facilities are presented in Appendix 1, which lists each public facility expected to be fully
or partially fmanced by each development area's fair share contribution. Please see Appendix 1,
Tables 1-1 through 6-1 for a detailed sununary of in!Tastructure costs. Table I sununarizes the
total facility cost for each facility type in 2005 dollars, The total costs of facility improvements
needed to accommodate new development is $345.3 million.
Table I
Facilities Costs
($2005)
Total Cost
Facilitv Name For Facilitv
Transportation Facilities $] 13,534,435
Drainage Facilities $113,276,135
Dry Utilities Facilities $18,601,74~
Park and Open Space Facilities $73,146,279
Library Facilities $2],804,000
Fire Facilities $4,968,000
Total Facilities $345,330,593
David Taussig and Á,sociates, Inc.
Page 3
II
SUMMARY OF FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION AMOUNTS
In order to finance the facilities identified in Table I, DTA calculated the fair share contribution
amount for each development area through build-out. Table I! describes the developer
allocations by gross acreage based on each development area's fair share contribution excluding
any previous contractual agreements as illustrated in Appendix 2, Table III summarizes the net
developer allocation per gross acreage reflecting any existing contractual agreements as
described in Table IV, Section III.
Table IV summarizes developer allocations by gross acreage. Section I describes the fair share
allocation for each development area per gross acreage. Section I! identifies total in!Tastructure
fair share cost by development area including the amount fmanced by other financing
mechanisms. Section II! illustrates the fair share cost reassignment per existing contractual
agreements between the City and developers. These figures would apply for calendar years 2005
and 2006, and then would be subject to increase to reflect increasing land acquisition and
construction costs within the City.
Table II
Total Development Area Allocation
Fair Share Contribution Per Gross Acreage
Development
Area
Total
Developer
Allocation
Per Gross
Acrea2e
1&2
3&4
6
7
10
11
12
$289,986 $216,647 $212,913
$240,114 $230,342 $409,659 $371,497 $219,254 NA $424,348
--~------~--~---
Table III
Total Development Area Allocation
Net Fair Share Contribution Per Gross Acreage
Development
Area
Total
Developer
Allocation
Per Gross
Acreage
1&2
3&4
6
7
9
10
11
12
$289,986 $216,647 $212,913
$207,802 $244,065 $434.064 $393,629 $232,316 NA $324,375
~
> ~ ~
~ 2~
~H
.... ,,~
~
ï
~
!
w
.
z
~
~
~
i
i
>-
~
~
~
.
~
" !
~ ¡¡
. ,
~
. ¡
~
!
0 ¡
.!
!.
~
- ~
~ i
I .
0 .!
!
. ¡;
.g~'.~~-
.......,
-
.'~!~N:-
-
"'~¡¡'
Ni:¡¡¡¡.~o
-
...!~:"
.g¡j~ ..
-
. .;¡.~<
.. . ' "" ~ " å N
'~~'.
.¡¡¡.¡¡¡..~"
.. . ¡; 0
;.-"~o.
~ . ì,
'..'.ligo
.~o .,b
.~.¡¡¡. .
,
.
¡ I
I "
, t
, ~ g
~. q
~, Æ ¡
,~ "0
I ~ ð g'
'!ð!2i
l ~.¡.
i~I~-
H~
¡¡:
!
"
~
ø
0
0
"
0
.
,.
~
~
~
5
~
8
,
~h
-10
r
lí,
ï;j~
j~
"
~
. ~
.
0
,
-
0
i
i
~
i
0 J
-
i
~
- ,
.I
~ ~
I A
~
~
. . §8;
:~I~~~g
, .
" '
N .
. ~
.
~
."i'...§"
a ~....~.~
g ..:;...
J
. ~ " ;¡
'§."..~~
.~~~ .;
¡¡
......
. . -" ¡¡
:~g~~riE
~
~Ii¡~~;
;¡ " ri ;: , . ;;
'1< 0'..
i ;¡ . 8. ~ ~ ".00.
" Ii :¡ . ¡¡ .
-
N ".;¡ o. ~
:~,i~n
~
0"- ..
~!~.t~
~ ;( " " " .
&,~~-¡;.'o.
.. ;.~ ."- ..~ ì.-_.
;; . ~
:i:!~n
,~S;.q
~~~.ri~~
!
î I
¡ ;;
~ ~ i
~ ! i
j .
0 ,
, .
I j ð
, ! ~ !
! . 0 .
t i f ~
~
> ~5
~ ~ ~
",q
~ ~I
"
z
.
z
ø
,.
~
0
u
.
<
>
~
.
~
~
i
~
§.. õ ~
:' g ~
¡¡ ! -
~J
.
~ ~
. ~
j
. þ
. ¡¡
;
"
'"
0 ~
f
~~
g
-
, ~
'"
oJ
~
-
~
¡
o?
~
,
:?
" ~
!
~
.
~
¡
N~
~ ;
,
~
!!
.. .. ~ o.
i J l~ Ii
I § ~;'ð! ¡-
i'! ,~! mJ,j ,~L
.í .\H,s .§~
- ~. un" 3 Æ
~ ~! m~§dh
!
.
~ §
~ ê
. I, ..
. .
! -
. ;
f t ~ ~
;; .
-
~ I, ~
g . . .
~ -
.
. ~ 1
:
'"
. . '.
, .
¡¡ -
~ -.
. N ~
~
~ :¡ g
. ~ .
. ~ g
~ : ~.
E ¡¡
Ë , ¡
i ~ ~
~ Ì ~
~ ¡",
" H!t
! l8 ~~
"
¡¡~
t;
H
p
..
Ii
In
. jj ~
¡ H
ãH
'§~~
h¡j
iH,!
. '" ~
3'B
-1'.
j~H
£~j.
~!~,
, .~.
H~j
nil!
gõ¡H
.,... ~siJt
lill] ;i.~i
I!!!! , ] ~'l~¡
,~f¡f" i :¡.I~E~~
.\~~~~~.,;~-;~~~~¡~g
~~~~~~~~~~~~gi~~íïi
!jj¡j1j¡ji!i¡!1!ii~
l[illl!!llllã!!~~Æ!
Âl]!~~!!~~ÂJI~Jîljl
,,;;::;: ""E
-
David Taussig and Associates. Inc,
Page 6
III
DEMOGRAPHIC ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS
In order to determine the fair share allocation amounts as presented above, DTA projected future
population and employment assuming current growth trends in housing, commercial, and
industrial development extrapolated to build-out.
Expected Development Assumptions
DTA categorized developable residential land uses within the City's residential zones as Single
Family or Multi-Family. Non-residential land uses within the City's commercial and industrial
wnes are categorized as Commercial or Industrial, respectively,
Residential land use estimates are based on an estimate of the number of housing units projected
to be built per entitlements consistent with the Specific Plan following modifications based upon
granted entitlements and negotiations with each developer. DT A proj ected the number of future
residents by multiplying the number of expected housing units times the estimated average
household size of each residential land use type. I Detailed summaries of the development
assumptions may be found in Tables D-l and D-2. The results of such computations are
presented in Table V in Appendix 3.
Table V
Avera~e Household Size and Total Number of Future Residents Per Land Use
Residential Expected Average
Land Use Housin~ Units Household Size
Total Residents
Single Fan1ily
Multi Family
1,961
2,504
3.39
2.44
6,648
6,110
12,758
Total
4,465
1 Average household sizes derived from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Universe: Housing
Units.
David Taussig and Associates, lac.
Page 7
Non-residential land use estimates are based on the total gross acreage likely to be developed
through build-out. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table VI.
Table VI
Total Developable Non-Residential Area and
Estimated Future Commercial and Industrial Development
Non-Residential Total Square Feet
Land Use Estimated to be Developed
Commercial 8,547,496
Industrial 687,087
Total
9,234,583
Finally, DTA projected the number of future employees in the City by multiplying the expected
Commercial and Industrial building square footage by a factor of 0.23 employees per 1,000
Square Feet and 0.21 employees per 1,000 Square Feet, respectively? The results of such
analysis are presented in Table VII.
Non-
Residential
Land Use
Commercial
Table VII
Estimated Future Employees
Employees per
1,000 SF
Future
Employees
Building SF
Industrial
8,547,496
687,087
0.23
0.21
13,525
975
1,874
Total
2 As stated in Table 14 of the Employment Density Study Summary Report as of October 3,2001 prepared by the
Natelsen Company, Inc. for SCAG.
David Taussig and Associates, Inc.
Page 8
IV
DESCRIPTION OF FAIR SHARE ALLOCATION CALCULATION TABLES
AND METHODOLOGY
Tables I-I through 6-1 in Appendix 2 show detailed calculations for each development area's
fair share allocation amount for each facility type. Included below is a brief sununary of the
methodology utilized to calculate each development area's fair share contribution necessary to
fund $337.3 in infrastructure cost.
Transportation Facilities Analysis (Table 1-1, Appendix I):
Table I-I in Appendix 1 describes the apportionment of transportation facilities costs for each
land use. Roads, bridges, traffic signals, and traffic mitigation facilities 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, bridges, traffic signals, and traffic mitigation facilities costs are apportioned on
the basis of average daily trip ("ADT") generation factors,
Drainage Facilities Analysis (Table 2-1, Appendix 1):
Table 2-1 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 2-1 shows the calculations for run-
off factor multiplied by acreage for the various land uses, as well as a summation of total unit
runoff
Dry Utilities Facilities Analysis (Table 3-1, Appendix 1):
Table 3-1 describes the apportionment of dry utility costs allocated to various Development
Areas by net acreage, based on the assumption that utility demand is uniform across all
Development areas. The allocated costs per acre was then multiplied by the net acreage for each
Development Area to determine the fair share responsibility for each area.
Park Facilities Analysis (Table 4-1, Appendix I):
Table 4-1 presents the apportionment of park 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 between existing residents, availability of use is measured in term of equivalent
benefit units or (EBUs), with one (I) EBU representing the potential recreation usage of a single-
family detached residential unit.
David Taussig and Associates. Inc.
Page 9
EBUs for park facilities are a function of the number of hours potentially available for use of the
park facilities. As calculated in Appendix 3, section I, one EBU represents 199 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 this table.
Library and Civic Center Facilities Analysis (Table 5-1, Appendix 1):
Table 5-1 presents the fair share apportionment of library and civic center facility costs. All of
the facilities are sized to serve future residents and employees.
Section I identifies the total number of Equivalent Dwelling Units ("EDUs") generated by
future residents and employees. An EDU is a means of quantifying different land uses in terms
of their relative equivalence to a residential dwelling unit, where equivalence is measured in
tenns of the level of potential infrastructure use or benefit derived by a specific land use for each
type of public facility. Section II identifies the facility costs for the infrastructure that will be
required for each facility type to be constructed through build-out. Section III apportions the fair
share contribution to new development based On their proportionate share of EDUs for these
specific facilities.
Fire Facilities Analysis (Table 6-1, Appendix 1):
Table 6-1 describes the apportionment of each development area for both residential and non-
residential land uses based on their proportionate share of the total fire calls received by the City
of Tustin during Fiscal Year 2003-2004 for each type ofland use.
Appendix 1
Allocation Methodology
D."",~."."'A.=",~,,",
,. ADT Ca'ou""o.
Ranid"tlal Land U" Cat'go",
Singl,-Family D,ta,h,d
Singl,.Family Ma,h,d
Mu"-Family AIta,h,d
SeniDI HD"ing M"h,d
Subtotal Ran"ant,,1
Comm""ial and Ind"tnal Land U" Cat'gmy
R,ta"
Offi"
Hotel (350 room,)
S"im ,ongmgat, Cam F"ilily
Light 'ndu,"i,'
Subtota!, - Comm""ial and Ind"tlial
II. P<opo..dF,,"""
F"ility Type
R"dlBlidg,
T"ffi, S,gna'
T""'Mitigation
Total
III. Allo,atio. Rata ..' Unit., 1,000 Squa" Foot
Land U" CatagD",
Single-Family Det"hed
Smgl,-Family AIta,hed
Multi-Family AII"h,d
S"im Ho"ing AII"hed
R,tail
Offi"
Hol,1 (350 room,)
S";OI Congmgate Cam F,,;lity
Lightlndu,tlial
Totel
") '~""P~"'~"~ADTb"k,'oo"di""~ab,"
1'1 '~AÞp""""-"~'.m""pm"b.d<"w"'.'~'bm
TABLE 1-1
TUSTIN LEGACY
TRANSPORTATION ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY
TI;pG,,',,"'nR",
pel Unit [1)
10
8
7
4
TI;p G""ation Rate
[p"',OOOSquamF..t}
68
14
10
4
8
FaD"ity CD,t
$89,224,447
$8,110,800
$16,199,188
$113,534,435
Tlip Gan"atiDn Rate
pel Unit [I}
to
8
7
4
51
14
10
4,2
8
P",-By Cm"t
D"',rtedand
.",-By Cmdit
17
o
o
o
°
Alloealioo Rate Pel Umli
pel 1,000 Sq..", Fa"
$5,21123
$4,16898
$3.64786
$2,08449
$26 57725
$7,295,72
$5,21123
$2,188,72
$4,168,98
NatTnp
G"""',on Ral'
p"Un'
to
8
7
4
NatTlip
G.."",,n Rata
[p"',OOOSq..mF..t)
51
14
to
4
8
Numb" 0'
Units [2)
1,409
552
2,262
242
4465
80"" Faet
1,659,722
6,114,752
614,028
158,g94
687,087
9,234,583
Ranidenlial, Comme"",' and 'nd""", ADT Total,
Co",."ADT
$40954
$37,23
$7435
$52112
Numbe'" Un;tsf
80..", Foat
1409
552
2,262
242
1,659,722
6,114,752
614,028
158,994
687,087
Co", F;no"ed
$7,342,618
$2,301,278
$8,251,456
$504,447
$44,110,854
$44,611,499
$3,199,839
$347993
$2,864,453
$113,534,435
TD'"
ADT',
14,090
4,416
15,834
968
35308
TDt"
ADT"
84 646
85,607
6 140
668
5,497
182,857
217.86'
o"idT'""'ga",A""i"",I~
TABLE 2-1
TUSTIN lEGACY
DRAINAGE AL1.0CA TlON METHCOlOGY
711112005
I. Runoff Rate Coeff~ient Calculation
land Use Calegmy
low Densi1y (0-7 Units per Acre)
Medm Densi1y (8-15 Units per Acee)
Medium High Density (15-25 Umls per Acre)
Re1all
Office
Holel
Senior Congregale Care FacWly
Llghl Indu"nal
Total
Runoff Rale
Coefflcienl, "C" Nel Acreage ToIaIU"i1Runoff,"OII"[I]
0,50 151,5 75.8
060 1683 101,0
0,80 812 650
1,00 119,5 119,5
1 00 162,8 1628
1,00 7.7 17
1,00 7,3 73
1,00 37,9 37,9
736.2 5769
FacilityCost Co" Per Uni1 Runoff
$85,607,135 $148,39421
$27,669,000 $47,96235
$113,276,135 $196,356,56
Ru"offRale Allocation Rate
Coeffie<enl. "C' per Acre Co" Fina"ced
050 $98,17828 $14,874,009
0,60 $117,81394 $19,828,085
080 $157,08525 $12.755,322
100 $196,35656 $23.464609
100 $196,35656 $31,966,848
100 $196,35656 $1,511,946
100 $196,35656 $1.433.403
1 00 $196,35656 $7.441,914
$113,276,135
II. Propose. Facilities
Facil'y Type
Dr"nage Impro'emenls
Waler Quality Mi1igatio"s
Tolal
III. Allocation Rate per Unit or 1,000 Square Feet
la"d Use Categmy
low De".ty (0-7 Units per acre)
Medium De",,'y (8-15 Un's per acre)
Medium High De"i1y (15-25 Uni1s per Acre)
Relail
OIfice
Holel (350 rooms)
Se"im Congregale Care F<ocility
lighll".u"rial
[I] 8""ool"'R"iOO""'1hodl""',"I"i"""roll,Q"CIA,wh"eq."~o","c",lc"elp,,"co""C""n-offrn"cbemc"nl,
'"r"n"""",""ly,"'~h"",rho",,"dA"drni",ge""ina"" U",ru~offl,""'ined""~""",rinchofrnin""inl"""'",arl"CA,
whoh i'""'10 ""rmine1he rei"" con'ib~ioololo" ru~ollb,I"'",i,", Ia""",
D"'" T'""'g "d '"","t." '00
I. Demand Ratio
Land Use Categ",y
Low Density (0-7 Units per Acre)
Medium Density (8-15 Un,s per Acre)
Medium High Density (15-25 Units per Acre)
Retail
Office
Hotel (350 rooms)
Senior Congregate Care Facility
LIght Industr~1
Total
II. Proposed Facilities
Facl"y Type
Electric
Gas
Telephone
Cable TV
Telecommun~atlons
Total
III, Allocation Rate par Unit or 1,000 Square Feet
Land Use Catego",
Low Density (0-7 Unlls per Acre)
Medium Dens,y (8-15 DU per Acre)
Medium High Density (15-25 au per Acre)
Retail
Office
Hotel (350 rooms)
Senior Congregate Care Faell'y
LIght Industrial
TABLE 3.1
TUSTIN LEGACY
DRY UTILITIES ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY
711112005
Demand Ratio
Net Acreage
151,5
168,3
81,2
119,5
162,8
7,7
7,3
37,9
736,2
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
1,00
Facility Cost
$13.786,254
$1,423,906
$692,394
$0
$2.699,190
$18.601,744
Cost Per
Net Acreage
$18,726
$1.934
$940
$0
$3.666
$25,267.24
Allocation Rate
par Acre
$25,267.24
$25,267.24
$25,267,24
$25,267,24
$25,267,24
$25,267.24
$25.267,24
$25.267,24
Cost Fin.nced
$3,827,987
$4,252,477
$2,051,700
$3,019,435
$4,113,507
$194.558
$184,451
$957,628
$18,601,744
11] ."eO O" ,",",f,om""o", "tiNti",", IO'.ofth"mb °' ge"e~Ii"t~" æ" be m,d. th't ,e"'e, the ,."ti,e 00"'" a".
of d~ "til'~ i"f~"'"ct",e to demo"d °' '"d "'" ,"egorie,
D..O"...,.,,^,~.,~,",
" Fut"Æ EB" Ca',"""'O"
""""..T,,,,
SI",,'H,mily
",""am"y
CDmm,~I"
'00""".'
To..'
II, P"pœ""Fa'"It"'I~
Fa,"",Ty...
N..hbo""'odPa"-""'"D~"o...'Are,GP,,'O1
N."hbochoodPa"-""""""""""""GP,,'02
Comm""", Po~- """"D'~',...'A"a
Aq~ti,C.nta,- ",,""D~",...,C'mm""",P,,'
T,""" C,"ta,- ""ta, """"...,C,mm"n", Pa~
T~ti"L.g"yPo~-C'tyA""
Li~a,P,~-""ta,D~.....,A",G
LI~"Po~. ""ta, D~,....'A"a 0
Oth"P".i,~"" Cpo"S"" """"D~"'...'A'" E
Fed.".." BOdge - Warn" Li~" Po"
Fed."",," B'.",. Am"""ngILi"'" p",
B"dg.T~ti"Ra"ohw"Li"."Pa~
III. AIIo""," R"'. P" """,..., 1,000 5q~" Faa'
L,MU..Ty...
SI"g"-Family
""tti-F,ml'y
COmm"",'
'"d""""
Tota'
TABLE'-1
TUSTIN LEGACY
PARK AND OPEN SPACE FACIL'TlES METnOOLOGY
R"'d.",,
...,""'IEmOoy,,,
""',OOOSq~"F"'I'1
3,39
'"
15S
102
F"iI",
C",
$2454,710
$2,S24,O82
$20S17,970
$5,TS1S38
$3,312,000
S1O,902,OOO
$3,633,502
S5,120S5S
$4,1T6,519
$3,312,000
$1.656,000
S5,175,OOO
$73, "6,279
EBU,...,",,"
..., ',000 Sq~" Faa'
1,00
0,72
008
0,07
I" CII,"'T"".GM«"".",200"S,""""C.llfum...,,,,".,I~"'G~'"',200'
I" """Mdi,"'fu""'w,.,I~II"""oo"Oi"fu~a'~
13""'POMdi"-1
KICLIENTS2ITUST'N,CInTUST'NMCA5'FEE ST"DYlFEESTUDU 123
Potarn,,'
R"m"" ""..-" ..., U",.
..., 1000 Sq~" F," 121
199
"3
16
"
C",
Fe, EBU
$54628
$628.49
$5,52313
$1,28.223
S73707
$2,426,19
$8.08.,62
$1,13962
$92947
$737,07
$368,54
$1,151,67
$16,278.38
Alloo"'011 R,ta..., U,,"
""',OOOSqooreF...
$18.278,38
$11,71659
S1297,11
S1,1628.0
"""005
EBU ...,U,," ""m"',,' Un'" Total
",,1,OOOSq~re F... Sq~"F..t[31 N"m"', of EBU,
100 1,961 1,961
072 2,5" 1,8.02
O,OS 8,547,496 681
0,07 687,087 49
4,493
eo. F;",~.d
$31,921,910
$29,338,353
$11,087,070
$798,906
$73,146,279
D.""""_,."'A,,od.,~,,~
I. ""," EDU C"o,""on
1.00' Uæ Typ"
Slogl~,.mily
M",~F.mily
Comm",'"
",,"",.,
To'"
II, P"po..' ,..lIIt~' 10"",°'>'
F"III" Typ"
C",ofTD"oUbrn,>,,"'C",oCoote<[3]
T"'" F..II." C".
III. Allœ"'oo R... p",Un"o,p" 1,000 Sq"" ,..t
Loo' U"Typ"
~ngl~"mlly
M",~"mily
Comm,~,.1
",,"",.,
To"'Co"oIUb",>,.n'CMoC,.."F""rti"
TABLE 5.1
TUSTIN LEGACY
LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER 'ACIUTIES METHODOLOGY
R".,om'
Emoo,." p'" uo.
"",OOOSq~reF'ot]l]
3,39
2,44
158
142
F.ol",
Co"
$21,804,000
EDU'p"'Uo.
"",OODS"""..,
100
0,72
0,23
0,21
EDU""
U".p"",OOOSq~reF""]2]
1,00
072
023
021
Co"
'"EDU
$369292
$369292
Fo"",
Uo."",OOOS,~reF"t
$3,692,92
$2,66167
686183
$77259
'" C",oI;"..G~~""",2D"",","mC.II"""^,,oci,'~oIG_m~","'"
to E""'mol"'_""Y_"..~,,'nol""""""'~'"~g.
131 Dom""mo"""'M"""""""""re.8"'""~"mo~mo,"Cœl";m.,V."oo2,O~","o""". CO,.",","
"CUE","',""'N Cm""tNMCA,"EE "UD~FEmUDY.91"
N,mb"o!
U".Sq~re "'1]3]
1,961
2,504
8,547,496
68T,087
C"tFl~oœ'
$7,241,826
$6,664,811
$7,368524
$530,640
$21,804,000
T"'"
Hem"',,! EDUO
1961
1,805
1,995
144
5,904
D~"""",""'.œ"'..,'~
TABL".1
1lJSTIN LEGACY
"" 'A",UTIES "mODLOOY
LPropo..."."n"
""",T".
O"",Coo,~""""lh"'~",,S,liool1
"",' ""LII",Coo"
""'"
C,""
$4,968,000
$4,968000
It Co~A"oc"',"
LoodU..",.
R,"""'"
Noo',",,"""
""""'0""'"
"""",,,
N"mb" "U,'.
Noo-R,"""Ii,"'"""'" 121
.,65
9,234,583
"',",'C""P"U,'v "",' """'"Lol ,,",I Cool ,,'U"'V
,"1.000""""" C""13) "",' ~'oc,lioo ""000"""",,,
---
016 705 60,75% $3.019,97030 "96,76
0,05 456 39,25% ".048,029'0 "00,"'
---
",61
$4,968000
", Dom"'."'M,....,",...ct""-","""'rnp«WOm""œ"._.V"oo,o.~...",,,,.a,on...
""."'-"'-'
""".'"'00""""'_""""
Appendix 2
Fair Share Allocation By Development Area And Developer
"'""~æ"""="æ'œ
TABLE 1.1
TUSTIN LEGACY
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
FAIR SHARE ALLOCATION BY DEYELOPMENT AREA AND DEVELOPER
Um" cr """,to ,,' "",F$I' cr ~".'.n""""'"
/' 1&2 3&4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
./'.~ ToO"
.i L""'/ L"",,/ """"/ ""9 TLCP RCP TLCP TLCP CI~ y"",
j' Ly~ Lyoo Lyoo
"n" U.. C"ogOO" AIl""ti~"""
Ræ.'oo'" p~U"
Si,_oF.nily,,",,"'" $5,211.23 Un" 2155 279 166 166 533 1,409
o"Alloœ"'" $1.380,975 $1,453,932 $865,064 $865,064 $2.777.584 7,342.618
SI",O F.mly A""'"" $4,186,98 Um" 63 489 552
o"Alloœ'"" $2152,646 $2,038.632 2,301,278
M'H.ml~""dt'" $3,647,86 Un" 570 186 243 180 192 o 891 o o o 2262
"Altoœ"'" $2.079,279 $678,502 $886,430 $656,615 $700,389 $3,250,242 8.251.456
S",;crH~lng""'dt'" $2,064,49 U , 242 242
Co"Alloœtio" $504,447 504447
R"""n""Total" $3,964,701 $2,132,434 """'00" ~Ho. ......0' 00 oHM 0., " <0 0" """'"
"n" U.. C""'""
=
R.Oil
Al"",tio,"""
,"',000"
$215,577.25
Oif~
$7,295,72
HotO
$5,21123
C"".."" Co.. F"ili~
$2.18872
",~"",
Ug~ 100",""
$4,168,98
AII"""'"O-A"U"OTQfalObYD~,,<>pm"'A""1 $3""4'7011 $2'132'4341 $1,751,491",784,321
Ap,ro.lm"o Gro.. "".", 106 87 73 47
F",Sh."AlI""",pe,G~oA"" $37,403 $24,511 123,993 '38,094
Dwolope"
Totalo By O~"opec
p""""" 01 Tot. Cœt
L,"""ILyoo
7,848,628
6,91%
"'m
1,784,32
157%
157,361
$4,182,223
150,282
"_415
158,994
$347,993
,5,626,631
379,'" 307,5"
$1,582,349 $1,282,103
3,606, 4 5, 2 ,312 $8.634,080
$11,143,2, "'S06'240 "3"""" $8,634,O81
275 21 311 118
$40,521 $181~5ti $172~78 $73,170
~
77,162,100
67,"'%
P"""tofTo.',
1,006,100
$26,739,3
126,739,376
P~",,'ofT"""
16,21%
$0
18
$0
1$26'739,3~ $113,534,431
112 1,168
$238,744
D."'T.=..",,~o."',"o,
TABLE 2-1
TUSTIN LEGACY
DRAJNAGE FACILITIES
FAIR SHARE ALLOCATION BY DEVELOPMENT AREA AND DEVELDPER
Uo" ",Resld"tial and S"",e Feel (Sl) "" Comm",oal a lod",",al
,pe' 1 &2 3&4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
~
~.' Tola.
,óI~ L"o",/lyon L"n"'/ Leon",1 L.09 TLCP TLCP TLCP TLCP City V""",
~.. Lyoo Lyon
Land Use Cat~oll" Allo'"tion Rate
Resldeo'.' ,..Acee
Low Densl 0-7Un" ,""e $98,178,28 Mes 47,2 o 1043 151,5
Coal Ailoea'on $4,634015 $0 $10239,995 $14,874,009
Me<",m Densi 8-15Uolt ""e $117,813,94 A"es 39,1 16,2 48.8 18.4 47,8 o o o ° o 168,3
Coat Ailoea'on $4,606,525 $1,908,586 $5,513,692 $2,167,776 $5,631,506 19,828,085,3
M""'m Hi h Densi 15-25 Uo" pelAcee $157,085.25 A"es 42,2 12.9 7.7 184 81.2
Coat Ailoea'on $6,628,997 $2,026,400 $1,209,556 $2,890,369 $12,755,322
CommelO., '
Retail $196,35656 A~s 13.8 95 7,3 1,9 87,0 119,5
Coat Ailoea'on 2.709,721 1,865,367 t,433,403 373,077 17,083,021 $23,464,609
Office $196,35656 A".. 5,8 9,5 1009 46.6 1628
Coat Alloea'on $1, 138,868 $1,865,387 $19,812,377 $9,150,216 $31.966,848
Hotel $196,356,56 M.. 7,7 77
Coal Ailoeation $1.511,946 $1,511,946
Senl", Coo ate Cafe Faclll $196,356,56 A"" 7,3 7,3
Coat Alloea'on $1,433,403 $1,433,403
Ind""rial'
U9htl""'st/l. $196,356,56 A".. 21,8 16,1 379
Coal Allooation $4,280,573 $3,161.34t $7,441,914
""" MO "'" "-" 000' O^^ 0,"
To'" Acles
81.3
63.4
48,8
313
186,7
19,0
156,1
64,6
670
736,2
Totol Alloeated Costs, I $11'235'5221 "'542'6011 $5'513'692114"94'1761 $22,363,O481 $3'730'7751 $29'928'6671 $12'684'6341
Approximate GlOSS ACleage' 106 87 73 47 275 21 311 118
Fail Shate Alloea';on p..- GID" Acle' $'°5,995 $75~O2 $75,530 $89,543 $81,320 $177,658 $96,234 $107 ,497
1$17'O83'O21I$113~76'1351
18 112 1,168
$0 $152,527
De,elope"
Totals By De,elope"
P..centageoITo,,'Cost,
Leo",)lyoo
$23,291,815
20,56%
IOn
$4,194,17
3,70%
TLCP
$68,707,123
6065%
ffi
g
g!
~
~
.,
.,
"'w
wo:
co.,
~æ
;;;~~
~~~
;!<!~
w>-
~ID
ZZ
COO
"'CO
"'"
~<.>
g
;¡
~
~
0:
~
~
..
"
j
~
~
Æ
Æ
.
g
.
"
'"
~
E
8
.0
~
.
.
i
~
!
'~
6
~
"9,\-0 "'%",
'I< -°-t. ""ç
~
~
;:
~
m
ro
~
ro
~
..
M
N
..
~
~
~
~
<.>
i3
<=
i3
<=
i3
<=
i3
<=
.'j
"
. <
< 0
.~
~
"
. <
< 0
P
h
p
§;~!~¡
M~ ~ ¡g
~~~~.;:~
~ ;;; ~
~ ~
~ ~
o"';i~~
~~
;;;
3N~
:;~~~
~ * N~'
~f1~
'¡¡êê
"§"§"§
~;¡~;¡~;¡
"'~"'""',,
8 8 8
~. ~ ~ N
g:i æ æ æ
~~~ ~ ~
.Q ~ ~ ~
;¡
~
. !i
.~ : ~
- ~ ~
~ '" N
¿j ~ ~
= 5 .. .
~:; ~
j. Æ ~
ß~ ,~ ,~
,,~ ¡¡ ¡¡
:¡:~ " "
~
~~ro& tlJ ¡¡
::~~i;:f~
a
~~
¡;¡
~i~~
~
~m
ro~
~"
~
~
~m~ ¡g
;,iê~;:t
;;; ¡;¡ ;;;
m m
~I~I
"~ro~
;:':"'~
ê ê gê
~hhH]
"'~"',,"',,"'~
8 8 8 8
~ ~ ~
N
æ æ æ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
.
~ 8
n ¥ :;¡ ,~
00: Õ i! ;¡¡
<.>
ro r ~§
~~~!! ~~ê
a
:;;
i5 ~ "¡¡¡"
N.NN ;:¡N'N
~;: ~ ~ ~.:"
:;: ~ :;:~
~i~ ~~~
"'
:!'"' ¡'j:¡;~
~
! j'! ¡Ì!
~ I,,~
~ ~
"
N
""
"ã
~i
j ~~~
;i ~
;;
~ ~f'~
~. ;;;
;;;
~ ~. ;:' ~~"'
i6 ¡¡&i; H~
;;; ~ .3;i
2 iê~
¡;¡ ~
~ ;; i!, ~ ~ ~ j¡i
~ 8~: ~H
~ ~:ë H~
~ H~ ~~
~.. < ;; ~
s~.. 0<
~.~~ ~ ~
~.,
~å
ê
~§
t;~
"""
\J
<.>
~
æ
~
~
.
IJ
II
~
~~
""
~:3'
~
""'T,-.,.."""".",,,,,",
TABLE'-'
TUST'N LEGACY
PARK AND DPEN SPACE FACILITIES
FAIR SHARE ALLDCATION BY DEYELOPMENT AREA AND DEYELOPER
,its fo.- Resid",'al oed &¡o"e eel 1"1 10.- Comm"'oal and Ind",.ial
,,~
.éf 1 & 2 3&4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
",e. Tota.
,ð>~ L"""I L"""I Leoo,,1 Lai,g TLCP TLCP TLCP TLCP City Vesf"
Ail" Lyon Lyon Lyon
La"d Use Cateao,ies "'o"'on Rale
Residen"', p",U,it
S"gle-Family $16,278.38 Unifs 265 279 166 229 1022 1,961
Cosl AI/oœ"on $4,313,772 $4,541,669 $2,702,212 $3,727,750 $16,636,508 31,921,910
Moil-Family $11,71659 Un's 812 186 243 180 192 891 2,504
~ $9,513,875 $2,179,287 $2,847,132 $2,108,987 $2,249,586 ". $10,439,486 ". 29,338,353
Reslde,ltlaITo'als, $13,827,646 $6,720,956 $5,549,344 $5,838,737 $18,886,094
$0
110,439,486
1o
$0 $0 $61,260,262
P"œntofTDlal' 91,51%
Land Use Cat~"'es AJlo,,"'on Ra'e
p'" 1 ,000 sl
Comme"i" S u"e Feel 466,637 248,292 5,866,676 959,791 1,006,100 8,547,496
$1.297,11 Cosl AI/oœ"on $505,281 $322,063 $7,509,743 $1,244,958 $f,3O5,O26 11,087,070
Ind","al
$1.162,50 Sou"e Feel 379,553 307,534 687,087
CosIAlloœ"o" $441,345 $357,601 798,946
^---_o;.' ..rl ,.rl.....;., ToO.'.' " " , , '""., ","" '"" 'M T eo, '" " T '"5"oe "',""'011
QulmbYFeeC'ed.s"]' 14,236,OOO)1 I 11',969,7181 I I I 1
Allo,,"",ns -All Uses To'als by Developmen' A... $9,591,646 $6,720,956 $5,549,34 $3,867,01 $19,491,375 $322,063 $18,490,574 $1,502,55
Appm,'mate Gm" A".ag" f06 87 73 47 275 21 311 118
Fal' Sb"e Allo,,"'Io" po< Gmss A". $90,487 $77 ~52 $75,018 $82,S58 $70,878 $15,336 $59,455 $13,551
P""'of ofTotaL 11.76%
1$6205.?18)
$0 I $1305021 $66,940,561
18 112 1,168
$0 $11,652
Develop'"
Tota~ By Develope"
P""entege of Total Cost
L"'""'!LY,"
$21,861,946
3266%
L"n
$3,867,01
5.78%
TLCP
$39,906,571
5961%
11] Denotes Qolmby Fe.. ooofribotion credit
ffi
i
iß~
E~
~~
.~
~~w
.,~~~
~~~~
~~~;
Co
~.
CC
~u
~~
C
w
~
~
~
.
1
~
~
i
..
i
..
g
E
8
.
.
a
.
I
i1
~
§
<'0 <'b¡,
'. "'~
',,- y
~
"
~
~
m
~
,
~
~
~
~
~~
;~~¡gi?
:;; ¡¡¡~g
~
°0:00:
þ
ü
00:00:
.
u
"
0:;:00:0:
~
~
o:;:::¡~.
:;¡¡;¡
.
u
"
0:;:°0::;;
.
u
"
~ ~i(¡
N '~~~
-;i
j
m~.2~~,
~ã~~;;;
~
~ ~
~~M:e
~~~~~
~
§~
I'?;¡~q~
N:~~;;;
~
c ~
0"
æ~~~~
:¡; ¡;¡¡¡
ð Õ ~
.~.I\~
~!~!~
8 8~
~
¡L
õ 5 ~ ~
B ~ å ~
"
:
]
~ ~
h~ !
ii;¡~ ~
~Æ<ñ ~
~
o:~
j
~~ ¡;
~~ i
~~
I
~
; "
§ ~
ð
~i!:
g~
"'"
nh n~ ~~~
0o:1~ IO:E~ ~o:~
æ ~
:;;~:;¡ Üo:~
~§.
~i
00:
00:0:
~;;;
:iã
~ ¡¡~.
~~~
¡e~
U
~n
¡¡~
~g
oo:g
,~
¡; ~.
~~
~
o:;;i
00:
0:;;0:
0:;;
o:¡¡:;;
00:
00:0:
00:
0:;;0:
Æi
~~
~ß
ÆH
~~ ~
".:5
~8~
s
~
g¡
E
8
;¡
¡
"
:e .
pä
!~~
L!J ~ii
¡¡¡N~
i~~
!~~~ j~§
~~~
~~~ n~
gê~
HU H~
H~ = n.
uE.Æ QQ~
~i!" ,¡¡~
£'; ~ ~ w
H~ ~i
Hg :
~:e
i ~
;: ¡
~ .
.
,
i
;¡
. !
Hi
Iii
~H
, ~ ~
¡ j ¡
Hi
Hj
H~
Hi
~ ~ ~
~~
O",dT,""",ndA"""'W',I""
TABLE 6-1
TUSTIN LEGACY
FIRE FACILITIES
FAIR SHARE ALLOCATION BY DEVELOPMENT AREA AND DEVELOPER
TI1112005
Units or e"dential and quare eet or ommerelal and Industria
.'
if'
"""~ 1 & 2 3&4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
.¡.'~ Totals
,i' Lennar! Lennar! Lennart Laing TLCP TLCP TlCP TLCP C'y Vestar
e>';'" Lyon Lyon Lyon
Land Use Cateaones Allocation Rate
Res~ential: per Un'
Single-Family $698,76 Units 265 279 166 229 1022 0 0 0 0 0 1,961
Cost AI/ocation $185,172 $194,954 $115994 $160,016 $714,134 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,370,271
MulteFamily $698,76 Units 812 186 243 180 192 0 891 0 0 0 2,504
Cost AI/oealion $567,394 $129,970 $169.799 $125,777 $134162 $0 $622,597 $0 $0 $0 $1,749,699
.00. 0"' .00000 .onoao <"0 oa7 <n <"" 'a7 <n ""aa70
Residential Tatals:- $752,566
$324,924
$285.793
$285,793
$848,297
$0
$622,597
$0
$0 $0
Percent otTotal:
$3,"9,970
62.80%
Land Use Cateaones Allocation Rate
per 1,OOOsl
Commercial $200.12 Souare Feet 0 0 0 0 486,637 248,292 5,866,676 959.791 0 1,006,100 8,547.496
Cost At!ocation $0 $0 $0 $0 $93,384 $49688 $1,174,042 $192,074 $0 $201341 $1,710,529
Industrial
$200,12 Square Feet 0 0 0 0 0 0 379,553 307,534 0 0 687,087
Cost AI/ocation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,956 $61,544 $0 $0 $137,500
<0 <0 'n <n <aoo04 <4a "00 _0 "o"Mo
Cammercial and Industrial Totals.
$0
$0
$0
$0
$93,384
$49,688
$1,249,999 $253,618
$0 $201,341
Percent otTotal:
$1,848,030
37.20%
Allacations - All Uses Totals by Oevelopment Area: I $752'5661 $324'9241 $285,7931 $285'7931 $941'6801 $49'6881 $1'872'5951 $253,611 $0 ! $201'3411 $4'968'0001
Approximate Gross Acreage: 106 87 73 47 275 21 311 118 18 112 1,168
Fair Share Allocation per Gross Acre: $7,100 $3,735 $3,915 $6,101 $3,424 $2,366 $6,021 $2,149 $0 $1,798
Developer: Lennart L on Lain TLCP
Totals By Developer: $1,363,284 $285.79 $3,117,581
Percentage of Total Cost: 27.44% 5.75% 62.75%
Appendix 3
Demographic Assumptions
"'..T,"~;g,,"'A='."',I""
7/11/2005
TABLE 0-1
TUSTIN LEGACY DEMOGRAPHICS USED FOR
TRANSPORTATION, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, AND FIRE FACILITIES
Units for Residential and Square Feet (sQ for Commercial or Industrial
"'\.1, 1 &2 3&4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Totals by
vo?,., Totals by
!t,~ Totals Major Residential
"". and Non'
Lennar! Lennar! Lennar! Category Residential
~~ Lyon Lyon Lyon Lain9 TLCP TLCP TLCP TLCP C,," Vestar
Land Use Cateoories
Residential:
Sinale-FarTilv Detached 265 279 166 166 533 I,4OS
Single-FarTilv Attached 63 489 552 1,961
Mufti-Familv attached 570 186 243 180 192 891 2,262
Senior Housin9 Attached 242 242 2,504 4,465
CommerciaL
Retail 157,361 103,455 374,674 18,132 1,006,100 1,659,722
Office [I] 150,282 144,837 4,877,974 941,659 6,114,752
Hotel 614,028 614,028
Senior Conareaate Care 158,994 158,994 8,547.496
Indusbial:
Light Industrial 379,553 307,534 687,087 687,087 9,234,5'"
Summation - Units:
Totals by Area # 1,077 465 409 409 1,214 0 891 0 0 0 4,465
Totals by Develope 1,951 4OS 2,105 0 0 4,465
Percent of Total DU's 43.70% 9,16% 47.14% 0,00% 0,00% 100.00%
Summation-Commercial S.F.:
Totals by Area 0 o 0 o 466 637 248,292 5866676 959791 0 1,006,100 8,547,496
Totals by Developer 0 0 7,541,396 0 1,006,100 8,547,496
Percent of Total S.F. 0.00% 0,00% 88.23% 0,00% 11.77% 100.00%
Summation-Industrial S.F.:
Totals by Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 379,553 307,534 687,087
Totals by Developer 0 0 687,087 687,087
PercentofTotalS.F. 0,00% 0.00% 100,00% 100.00%
o.~d T,""O aod Associa!"", '00
7/11/2005
TABLE 0-2
TUSTIN LEGACY DEMOGRAPHICS USED FOR
DRAINAGE AND DRY UTILITIES FACILITIES
Units for Residential and Acres (ac) for Commercial or Industrial
i'~.
~'" 1&2 3&4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
"~
~.~ Totals
". Lennar! Lennar! Lennar!
~.'Ó Lyon Lyon Lyon Laing TLCP TLCP TLCP TLCP City Vestar
".~
Land Use Cateaories
Residential:
Low Density (0-7 Un~ per acre) 47.2 104.3 151.5
Medium Dens. 8-15 Un~ Der acre 39.1 16.2 46,8 18.4 47.8 168.3
Medium Hioh Densitv, 15-25 Un~ per Acre 42.2 12.9 7.7 18.4 81.2
Commercial:
Retail 13.8 9.5 7,3 1.9 87,0 119.5
Office 5.8 9.5 100.9 46,6 162.8
Hotel 7,7 7.7
Senior Congregate Care Facility 7,3 7.3
Industrial:
Li9ht Industrial 21.8 16,1 37.9
Summation
Total Gross Acreage:
Total Net Acres by Planning Area Number:
Total Net acres by Developer:
Percent oITotal Gross Acres:
106
ã1
87
63
192
22,78%
73
47
46,84
3f3
3f3
4,01%
275
187
21
19
311
156
118
65
18
18
18
1,54%
112
87
87
9,59%
1,168
736
754
~
426
62.08%
""., ..o~g ,nO ^,~d"~, '"'
Total """,f Potenli,' P"',eod Op" SP"" U"g, p"W,,',
Uæ, of F"ilit'"
Pot"I'el
"e","'"
H,,~WOl'Dey
"e"d,nl, oon-~,kiog
"'.d,,! ~,kiog
Employ.. (Comm"",lIlod""",Q
12
2
2
TABLED-'
TUSTfN LEGACY
DEMOGRAPH'CS
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FACILITIES
Nomb"otWOI'
Dey, pe, Wook
"oo"p"
W"',,d Dey
Nombe"f
Woe'"d Dey,
p"W,,'
m,no05
Pot,,'e'
""",lioo
",," PeeW.e'
P"P.""
" Totel ",," of Poteo'el p"", "d Open Spe'" F"iI'li" U"g' peeW.." (S'ogl, Femily)
Typ, Of "'Old",
","deo! oon-~,kiog
""id'n',~","g
Nombee Pee
"""hold [1, 2]
1,67
1.72
Totel
339
2, Totel ",," of Poteo'el p"", U"9' pOI W.." (Mol'-Femily)
Type Of ""ide"
Nombe, Pee
"""hold [1, 2)
1,20
1,24
""ide", n,,-~,ki09
"",deo! ~,""'
Poleo'el """'1100
"",,!W.., pe' p"",
84
34
Pol,,'el ".."e'"
",,_.., pe' p"",
Totel
244
84
34
3, Totel ",,~ of Poten'el p"", U"g' pe'W.., (Commee,'el)
Typ,Of""'d"l
E"",by..
1,58
1,58
Empkiy.., pee Pol"'el "..,ee'"
I,DOO Sqoe" Feot [3] ",,_.., pe' P"",
10
Totel
4,Totel """ofPoteo'el P,,"'U",'pe'W.., (lod",I"el)
Typ' Of """"I
Employ..
1,42
1,42
Employe" pee Poteo'e' "..,ee'"
I,ODO Soo"e F..I [3] "",,¡w.., pe' p""o
10
Totel
12
12
0
Pot,,'el "e"..'oo
H"",!W..,
pOI """hold
140
59
199
Poleo'el ".."e'oo
"""¡w,,,
pOI """hold
101
42
143
Pol,,'el """"00
"o",>'Wee'
pOI H"..hold
16
16
PoI"',,1 ".."""
""'>'Wee'
pe' ""..hold
14
14
PI US,ce",",B~o,2000 "".P"-"".of_FOI_~16y~""d""""""'D"-Pro",.ofG~~""'m","p""ce~ect.",,,,
[2) CI~dTo"oG""".PI",2001
[3) Soo~~C.,"=""~d"""ofG~~,ot,,20O1
~:;:";~q~~~-;:;~::m~~~::-' I ~;
84
34
10
j
c'iJ
~
"
.
~i
CIS ~
C)~
Q) É:;
..Jø"
... ß~
.:: ,,~
.... .
UI~
~ ~
1-"
~
I
ø
.
~
'%"""W",1'"'
,".,1 ""8 ....
"'"N,,"'"
'"¡MI""N'
""".""
""'"n"
"""""00 ,
""'"'I'"'
"NŒrn'"
~
§~Ó"~~~~~~~~~~R~~"§~~~;".~~"""~.g~g~gg~
¡~~g ~~~~~§~g~å~~~i~~~~~~ ~~~!~~~~~~~~
~g~~~~;~~~~~~ËRm~~~g~g~~~~~~.~~.g~:~gg~
..." N"".'.~..O"~O."O '""'O~'OOOO
~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~2~~2a~~~;~å å~~~~~I~~~~~
,,""
"~~~~~gga~~~~m~a~m~~~:;@~aa~~~~ga~,aaa~
~$g~ tæ~ ~~~ ~ ~ti~æ~~"~ ~g~~g mm "
~~~~ ~~~ -~- - ~- ~~~~~ ~---- -- ~
~~£~~~~~a~~aa~g~gÔ"aggg~"a~"g~aa~aaa~~~
g~~~ ~~ ~" ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ g~~ ~
;;
õ
0
~
~
,
,
~
~
~
i
~
,
i
,
!
!
i
¡
I
i
J
2
~
!ß
2
u
>.'i!
(.) ~
nI ~
tn~
CU E"
...J ê §
.=H
.... rn
f/)":
:::I ~
~~
~
.
.
~
I"tl '"w,. '¡wO
(Of"""'.""
""",'S "'"
(..""",~,
"",,...¡,!
",,',""
"""""00 ,
~
I;;~III££;IIIII£IIIIIIIII;IIIIIII!
.
800808800888088£808000000000000000
~~~¡~¡¡ØØ¡ii~¡2 2=2===~=~~~~~~~al~
ggggggg££gggggg£gggggggggggggggggg
g~~g~gg ~gggg~ ~~~~~~gg~~gggggg88
~~~UU~~ ~~~""u UUUUUU"""""""""~M¡
"'n~
0000000000000000000000000000000000
MMMMMM~M-~~~M~~~~~~~~~ø~-~~~~~~-~ø
~
0000000000000000000000000000000000
~__M__M_MØ~____-----~-~--~-~-~~~~~
~
~
..
I
1
II¥IIIIIIIIIJI~II
~
f
j
J
ð
~
¡
-
~
,
¡
I
t
~
Î
I
¡
¡
~
!
~
ID
~
,¡j
~
8
>.E
(. ~
11111
0)[
j ~~
c: §~
.- :@~
...,m
1/1":
;:j ID
I-!
~
ID
~
1%" ','w'v "'"
(%"0"'.0'"
"""'" .""
lo¡.",.."NO
"'O""'~
""""'0
""""'00
'O"',OW'
'ON 0114'"
~
"
°gooooo
U~i~¡i
gg¡¡!i~;;.;!!igg~g",
'"'" ,""00.00,0,.
:;:; ~g",,"~~,,¡¡~
gg,,~iHg
Uggggg
~oi;;"oi,,¡¡
-, 0
gg¡¡!i~;;..!igng",
~~ g"'~ggggg;;;f:::
-- ~g~~~~~~a~
g~g§g¡¡¡¡.g¡¡"
H~~¡j ...
oi;;g~~ -, 0
Uggg¡g2'
~oi;;"oig¡¡
'w",
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡~¡¡¡¡~¡¡¡¡¡¡
00000000000
-----------
-------
~
00000000000000
--------------
00000000000
-----------
j
.
-------
0
.~
~
~
I
HHH
H
"'~ Æ"
d
,~
¡
f
,
I
!
I
I
~
I
~
~
w
~
,¡¡
~
<3
>.';1
(,) ~
cu ~
C)~
Q) Eo
...J -;;; ~
t: 5§
.- j!:':
..... '"
t/ ~
::;, ~
I-~
~
i
w
~
~
W,C, '"IWPV 'I'"
"I,S' ""B""
-""""S"'"
(%,,""'N'
"",,...."
"","""
""'"""0'
""""",
,..'
""""
'"!P"
"""".,
r~~i
~aaa¡;
~ g
~ I ~
N ~I¡O 0 N
~,~~~~
~ Ii i
r~~i
il ,;
;;;
~
~ ~
~ ~
~' ~
~~~~~
~~~~~
"NOI/""" I 'õ
~
~
II
'~ ' .
" '
I
I ê ~ ~! ~
!lm !!!!!!~!! 11m I
f
Æ
~
e
~
il~~~i il~~~i T~~~ Ir~~1
~,a~a~ ~aaa~ a¡alaa¡¡ '~,¡¡¡¡¡¡~
~ ~ - " I ~ ~
,~~~~;¡¡ ;¡¡~~!~~~;¡¡~.' ~:~I:.~~~ , ,
, ::..! ,~~~~~
i~ ~ I - ~
~
~:~~~!!
..;
~
!'~~~.
~ :
,,000.
f.~i
I~~~~~
;;;
~ ~
~~~~~
~ ~
",~~'~"
. .
~~~.~
"
"
I
I ~
.~~~~
, '
, ,
~ ~
"
.
~
;;;
;;;
.
.~.~.
, ,
, ,
~ ~
ã
<
,
"
.
.
.
.
~~.~~
.~..~
..~~.
.~~~~
.~~~~
o~..~
.~~~.
.~~~.
Ii
l
!
~
~
.
"
~
[I
I
II
I
I
I
,
]
,
,
j
I
I
~
.
¡
,
~
i
~
8
»1@
to) ~
lIS ~
C)~
CI) E;;
..J~c
... g~
,:: t~
..,ro
t/)~
::s ~
t-1
i
2)
~
:;;
*
§
!iJ
('I." "'w,. "'"
\%,"'.0.""
'",,~"'1'"'
«¡M""'~'
".,,""°1
".".""
".".".O"
'ON 0114'"
~
~~8êgg~~~~~~ggg~gg" :
~~~Ë~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~
~~~i~~~~ ~~~~ ~"S ~
gg8êg8g8~~~gggg~gg§ ~
~~~Ë~8~; ~~~~ ~~~ g
~~~i~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~
,."..
000000"'000"0000000 N
'""~~~'o~~~o~~.~~.^ ^
". 0" . 0
g!g ~Ê ~ ~ *
~
.,"'"w,o
g~8~~~gg~~~~~~~~~~8 "
~ ~ i~ ~ ~
~ . i
1
,
~
!
0
[
!
~
>
1;
I
~
í
i
,
i
ì
i
~
i
1