Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 INFRASTR FAIR-SHARE 04-03-06Lt-p; A' REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 3, 2006 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER Agenda Item 16 Reviewed: City Manager Finance Director FROM: CHRISTINE A. SHINGLETON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: TUSTIN LEGACY BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM 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 Program Fair Share Analysis and instruct City Staff to utilize 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 City Council Report Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Analysis April 3, 2006 Page 2 (electricity, gas, telephone, cable, telecommunications, etc.). The City acted as the lead 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, L.P. (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 Program 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 City Council Report Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Analysis April 3, 2006 Page 3 report, the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program will fund a total of $348,436,885 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 Area/ Developer Columbus Square/MMP Columbus Grove/MMP Irvine parcel/MMP Tustin Field I and II/John Laing The District Nestar Master Developer footprint/TLCP" Other Contributions*" "smaller sub -areas are identified in the Report "quimby park fees paid, library voluntary donations, Tustin Ranch Road Irvine Net Fair Share Contribution $28,421,173 18,962,850 13,097,210 9,733,437 36,330,000 228,011,801 13,907,409 Contribution per acre $268,124 217,964 278,664 143,139 324,375 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 the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement for the Master Development Site proposed for consideration also on April 3 with Tustin Legacy Community Partners {TLCP), LLC. 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 Program. City Council Report Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Analysis April 3, 2006 Page 4 In addition to Fair Share contributions established by the Fair Share Analysis, the financing of the 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. 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 Program 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 City Council Report Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Analysis April 3, 2006 Page 5 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. 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. Christine A. Shinglet Assistant City Mana er S:\RDA\CC report\AgendaReport 4 -03 -06 -Fair Share Contribution.doc Attachment Public Finance and Urban Economics 1.301 none Street, Sake 600 Tel (949) 955-,1500 Newport Beady CA 92660 Fax (949) 955-1590 www.taassig.cnas MEMORANDUM To: Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager From: Steve Runk Date: March 2, 2006 Re: Tustin Legacy Fair Share Analysis Transmitted herewith are the preliminary results of the analysis undertaken by David Taussig & Associates, Inc. ("DTA") to compute the fair share contribution for each development area necessary to finance public facilities needed to serve new development resulting from 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: • Background • Legal Basis • Facility Costs • Demographic Assumptions Used in the Analysis • Description of Fair Share Calculation Tables and Methodology • Fair Share Contribution Amounts by Planning Area • Appendices Facilities and Costs Demographics Allocation Calculations Cost Allocations by Planning Area Trip Generation Rates David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page 2 I �.1�11:51�i111J�` 1] Based on the final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Re -use of the former MCAS -Tustin site, it was determined that development at the former base would contribute to the need for certain backbone infrastructure located both on the site 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, cable , telecommunications, etc.). The City of Tustin ("City") acted as the lead agency for both City and the City of 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 have now been further refined to account for changes in the MCAS Tustin Land Use Plan. Staff was directed by the Tustin City Council in November of 2004 to complete the study (i.e., elimination of the golf course and replacement with open space) and also include costs associated with new flood control and water quality requirements, other environmental mitigation requirements related to the development at the former MCAS -Tustin, and the escalation in construction costs 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, L.P. (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 the development sites and transforming 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 credits the John Laing, MMP 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 Quimby Act park fees being paid, or contributions being made to the Tustin Library Project. The attached preliminary 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 calculations tables and methodologies, and a list of the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Program. David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page 3 II. LEGAL JUSTIFICATION Prior to World War II, development in California was held responsible for very little of the cost of public infrastructure. Public improvements were financed primarily through jurisdictional general funds and utility charges. It was not uncommon during this period for speculators to subdivide tracts of land without providing any public improvements, expecting the closest city to eventually annex a project and provide public improvements and services. However, starting in the late 1940s, the use of impact fees grew with the increased planning and regulation of new development. During the 1960s and 1970s, the California Courts broadened the right of local government to impose fees on developers for public improvements that were not located on project sites. More recently, with the passage of Proposition 13, the limits on general revenues for new infrastructure have resulted in new development being held responsible for a greater share of public improvements, and both the use and levels of impact fees have grown substantially. Higher fee levels were undoubtedly driven in part by a need to offset the decline in funds for infrastructure development from other sources. Spending on public facilities at all levels of government was $161 per capita in 1965, but it had fallen by almost fifty percent to less than $87 per capita by 1984 (measured in constant dollars). . The levy of impact fees is one authorized method of financing the public facilities necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development, as the levy of such fees provides funding to maintain an agency's service standard required for an increased service population. A fee is "a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, which is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project..." (California Government Code, Section 66000). A fee may be levied for each type of capital improvement required for new development, with the payment of the fee occurring prior to the beginning of construction of a dwelling unit or non-residential building (or prior to the expansion of existing buildings of these types). Fees are often levied at final map recordation, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or more commonly, at building permit issuance. The City has identified the need to impose impact fees to pay for transportation, drainage, dry utilities, park and open space, library and fire facilities. A detailed list of required public facilities (the "Needs List") is contained within Section III herein. The fees presented in this study will finance facilities on the Needs List at levels identified by the City as appropriate to mitigate the impacts of new development. Upon the adoption of the Fee Study and required legal documents by the City Council, all new development will be required to pay its "fair share" of the cost of facilities on the Needs List through these fees. Assembly Bill ("AB") 1600, which created Section 66000 et. seq. of the Government Code, was enacted by the State of California in 1987. This Fee Study for the City is intended to meet the nexus or benefit requirements of AB 1600, which mandates that there is a nexus between fees imposed, the use of the fees, and the development projects on which the fees are imposed. David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page 4 Furthermore, there must be a relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the improvements. To impose a fee as a condition for a development project, a public agency must do the following: • Identify the purpose of the fee. • Identify the use to which the fee is to be applied. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities must be identified. • Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. • Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for a public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is being imposed. Addressing these items will enable an impact fee to meet the nexus and rough proportionality requirements established by Dolan versus City of Tigard and other court cases. These findings are discussed and the nexus test for each proposed fee element is presented in Section V. Current state financing and fee assessment requirements only allow new development to pay for its fair share of new facilities' costs. Any current deficiencies resulting from the needs of existing development must be funded through other sources. Therefore, a key element to establishing legal impact fees is to determine what share of the benefit or cost of a particular improvement can be equitably assigned to existing development, even if that improvement has not yet been constructed. By removing this factor, the true impact of new development can be assessed and equitable fees assigned. However, since this project is a complete re -use of the existing MCAS - Tustin Base, it is assumed that there is no existing development that generates impact on the infrastructure in this study, and all new infrastructure cost is assigned to new development. Purpose of the Fee (Government Code Section 66001(a)(1)) Population, housing, and employment estimates prepared for this project indicates that approximately 12,137 new residents will be living in approximately 4,621 new residential housing units in the next fifteen years (See Section IV, Table IV -A for a breakdown of housing units by land use and by jurisdiction). During that same time period, approximately 7,745,145 square feet of new commercial and industrial development are expected to generate approximately 20,264 new employees.' The future residents and employees will create an additional demand for transportation, drainage, dry utility, park and open space, library, and fire facilities that existing public facilities cannot accommodate. In order to accommodate new development in an orderly manner, while maintaining the current quality of life, the facilities identified in Section III will need to be constructed. It is the projected direct and cumulative effect of future development that has required this Fee Allocation Program. Each new development area will contribute to the need for Reference is made to Section IV for further information regarding the development projections. David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page 5 new public facilities. Without future development the new public facilities would not be necessary. The impact fees will be used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of public facilities identified on the Needs Lists and other appropriate costs to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new development at the former MCAS Tustin The Use to Which the Fee is to be Put (Government Code Section 66001(a)(2)) The fee will be used for the acquisition, installation, and construction of the public facilities identified on the Needs Lists, included in Section III of the Fee Study and other appropriate costs to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new development at the former MCAS Tustin. The fee will provide a source of revenue to fund such facilities, which in turn will both preserve the quality of life and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the existing and future residents and employees. Determine That There is a Reasonable Relationship Between the Fee's Use and the Type of Development Project Upon Which the Fee is Imposed (Benefit Relationship) (Government Code Section 66001(a)(3)) The fees collected will be used for the construction of transportation, drainage, dry utilities, library, parks and open space and fire facilities to serve new development at the former MCAS Tustin, both within the City of Tustin and outside its jurisdictional boundaries. The type of development that will be paying these fees is new residential, commercial and industrial projects within the project to build out conditions. This expected development will generate new residents and employees that will increase the burden on existing infrastructure in the form of increased traffic, utility demand, drainage protection emergency response, and library and open space useage. In order to both maintain existing service standards and to construct new facilities at upgraded standards that meet City policy, the fees to be imposed on new development, as recommended in this Study, will insure that new development contributes it's fair share of funds to mitigate the impacts caused by such development. Determine How There is a Reasonable Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facility and the Type of Development Project Upon Which the Fee is Imposed (Impact Relationship) (Government Code Section 66001(a)(4)) As determined by technical analysis (such as traffic modeling) and City staff recommendations, the facilities to be financed are required to maintain service levels. These facilities are listed in Section III and correspond directly to the impact generated by new development. For example, the projected growth of residential homes ("dwelling units") and the growth of commercial and industrial leaseable space ("square feet") translate to additional traffic on city streets (average daily trips, or "ADT's"). In order to prevent congestion, streets need to be created or widened and signals installed. Likewise this new growth generates new residents and employees, placing greater demand on emergency and community services facilities. David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page 6 The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Public Facilities Attributable to the Development Upon Which the Fee is Imposed ("Rough Proportionality" Relationship) (Government Code 66001(a) This Study uses various methodologies to apportion the cost of new facilities to new development in proportion to the magnitude of the impacts that drive the need for the facilities. Fee amounts for the various land uses and the facility types are determined by apportioning costs according to their appropriate demand factors, such as equivalent dwelling units ("EDUs"), Equivalent Benefit Units ("EBUs), and traffic generation factors. Section V "Methodology and Fee Calculation", defines the various demand factors, describes the various methodologies for apportioning costs, and presents the calculations that justify the proposed fees for each facility group. Furthermore, DTA calculated separate fees for each land use designation within each facility group (ie., Parks, Fire Transportation, etc.). The land use designations used in this report are: Land Use Classification for Fee Stud Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium High Density Residential Senior Housing Retail Commercial Office Commercial Hotel Senior Congregate Care Other — Health Club / Theater Industrial David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page 7 III. SUMMARY OF FACILITIES COSTS The City identified various facilities that are needed to meet increased demand for services resulting from new development within the City limits as a result of the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and Specific Plan. These facilities are presented in Appendix 1, which lists each public facility expected to be fully or partially financed by each development area's fair share contribution. Appendix 3, Tables 3A through 3F show the specific facility items related to each facility group (transportation, drainage, parks, etc.). Table III -A summarizes the total facility cost for each facility type in 2005 dollars. The total costs of facility improvements needed to accommodate new development is $348.4 million. Table III -A Facility Cost Summary (Through December 2005 Dollars) F Facility Name Total Cost for Facility Transportation Facilities $113,864,619 Drainage Facilities $117,153,708 Dry Utility Facilites $19,252,806 Park and Open Space Facilites $78,651,862 Library Facilities $12,889,900 Fire Facilities $5,141,880 Community Entry Signage $1,482,110 Total Facility Cost $348,436,885 David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page 8 IV. 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 zones 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. DTA projected the number of future residents by multiplying the number of expected housing units by the estimated average household size of each residential land use type.z Detailed summaries of the development assumptions may be found in Appendix 2, Tables 2A and 2B. Table IV -A Average Household Size and Total Number of Future Residents 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 IV -B below: ' Average household sizes derived from City of Tustin General Plan. 'Does not include 192 future residents at Orange County Rescue Iviission, which is not part of fair share analysis and is quasi -public Expected Expected Total Average New New Total Residential Land Use Housing Housing Expected Residents Residents New Units in Units in HousingHousehold Size in Irvine n Tustin Residents Irvine Tustin Units (3) Low Density 166 1,284 1,450 3.35 556 4,301 4,858 Medium Density 243 1,227 1,470 2.73 663 3,350 4,013 Medium High Density 0 1,459 1,459 2.12 0 3,093 3,093 Senior Housing 0 242 242 2.12 0 513 1 513 Totals 409 4,212 4,621 1,219 1 11,257 12,477 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 IV -B below: ' Average household sizes derived from City of Tustin General Plan. 'Does not include 192 future residents at Orange County Rescue Iviission, which is not part of fair share analysis and is quasi -public David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page 9 Table IV -B Non -Residential Gross Square Feet Non -Residential Use Gross Square Feet Commercial 7,118,098 Industrial 627,047 Total: 7,745,145 Finally, DTA projected the number of future employees in the City by multiplying the expected Commercial and Industrial building square footage by employee density factors. Employee density factors were taken from SCAG report "Employment Density Study Summary Report", as footnoted. The results of the analysis and calculations are presented in Table IV -C below: Table IV -C Total Private Developable Non -Residential Area and Estimated Future Employees Associated With This Development Non -Residential Land Use Building Square Footage Square Feet per z Employee Employees per 1,000 SF Future Employees Commercial: Retail/Other Commercial 1,500,705 623 1.61 2,409 Office 5,023,399 324 3.09 15,504 Hotel 380,000 459 2.18 828 Senior Congregatge Care 158,994 459 2.18 346 Other -Health Club/Theater 55,000 623 1.61 88 Total Commercial 7,118,098 19,176 Average Employee per 1,000 SF Factor 2.69 Industrial: Light Industrial 627,047 576 1.74 1,089 Total Industrial 1,089 Totalsl 7,745,145 1 20,264 z Southern California Association of Governments, "Employment Density Study Summary Report", prepared by The Natelson Company, Inc., October 31, 2001. Employment density data for Hotel was taken from Table 2B ...Five County Region. Retail, Office and light Industrial were taken from Table 6B .... Orange County. Health Club/Theater was assumed to be the same as Retail. Senior Congregate care was assumed to be the same as Hotel David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page 10 V DESCRIPTION OF FAIR SHARE ALLOCATION CALCULATION TABLES AND METHODOLOGY Tables 3A through 3G in Appendix 3 show detailed calculations for each development area's fair share allocation amount for each facility type. Included below is a brief summary of the methodology utilized to calculate each development area's fair share contribution necessary to fund the total cost of infrastructure. Transportation Facilities Analysis (Table 3A, Appendix 3): Table 3A in Appendix 3 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. A traffic study performed by Austin Faust & Assoc. calculated ADT's by land use category and by Development Area. The total cost of transportation facilites less a $5.6million contribution from the Irvine Company was then allocated to each Development Area in proportion to percentage of total ADT's generated by each Development Area. Drainage Facilities Analysis (Table 3B, Appendix 3): Table 313 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 3B 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 3C, Appendix 3): Table 3C 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 3D, Appendix 3): Table 3D 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 David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page 11 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 (1) EBU representing the potential recreation usage of 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 3D one EBU represents 196 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 3E, Appendix 3): Table 3E 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 terms 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 317, Appendix 3): Table 3F 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 of land use. Community Entry Signage (Table 3G, Appendix 3) Table 3G uses the same methodology as Transportation Facilities to allocate facility costs to the various development areas. The rationale is based on the fact that benefits from entry signage improvements accrue predominantly to motorists entering and leaving the area. Therefore an allocation based on average daily trips ("ADT's) is appropriate. The total ADT's identified in the Austin -Faust Traffic Study was used in the calculations, with the exception of the omission of ADT's generated in Development Area 5. Development Area 5 does not participate in the allocation because its geographical location is within the City of Irvine limits. Because the ADT data is different, separate allocation calculations are required, dictating that Community Entry Signage be treated as a separate facility category. David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page 12 VI SUMMARY OF FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION AMOUNTS In order to finance the facilities identified in the Needs List, DTA calculated the fair share contribution amount for each development area through build -out. Table VI -A describes the total developer allocations by gross acreage based on each development area's fair share contribution excluding any previous contractual agreements as illustrated in Table VI -C, Section I. Table VI -B summarizes the net developer allocation per gross acreage reflecting any existing contractual agreements as described in Table IV -C Section II. Table VI -C summarizes developer allocations by gross acreage. Section I describes the fair share allocation for each development area per gross acreage. Section II identifies total infrastructure fair share cost by development area including the amount financed by other financing mechanisms. Section III shows total cost allocations to each Development Area by Facility Category. The columns at the right show developer fair share, other financing and total infrastructure costs. This table is a summary of detailed cost allocations shown in Appendix 4, Tables 4B thru 4G (Table 4A not used). All of 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 VI -A Total Development Area Allocation Fair Share Contrlbution Per Gross Acreage Development 1&2 1 3&4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Area Total Developer $268,124 $217,964 $278,664 $143,139 $251,002 $537,025 $373,561 $266,984 NA $324,375 Allocation Per $268,124 $217,964 $278,664 $246,093 $235,857 $504,621 $351,020 $250,874 $0 $384,696 Gross Acreage Table VI -B Total Development Area Allocation Net Fair Share Contribution Per Gross Acreage Development Area 1&2 1 3&4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Developer Allocation Per $268,124 $217,964 $278,664 $143,139 $251,002 $537,025 $373,561 $266,984 NA $324,375 Gross Acreage ; ME- _ _ { K _ { § T ! } I } E [ ! I - .! ; !} /( \) )\ \\ \\\ \)}}\} )�� ..! �l0\\t �)}(\\Eo \(/ ;; -2!/7 /() !|!!;� §G 7E 42§ f»))§ll:fli!!!)!!!,!!•! (}\\}/)k) !!!!!;!!!!{)§,!!{§§ !7!!ff!!ff{!!|!!!£|§| }!!!!!!!!!!!\7 PER F{`\\\ Ct ; ! , at , OM It `}\ \ �\ at — )- (\ \) \ ( !| - } )\ \\ \o \\\/\:) !} /( \) )\ \\ \\\ \)}}\} )�� ..! �l0\\t �)}(\\Eo \(/ ;; -2!/7 /() !|!!;� §G 7E 42§ f»))§ll:fli!!!)!!!,!!•! (}\\}/)k) !!!!!;!!!!{)§,!!{§§ !7!!ff!!ff{!!|!!!£|§| }!!!!!!!!!!!\7 PER F{`\\\ .-� 0 U � a � a .a _� 'u ro W w N H N N N N N N w g N H N H H y N N N N N N N xf N N N H w q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o N M N N w H H H N N W N N N H N N M N. N a M M M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O w N N N N N N N N N N H N H H N N N H N H w N N N N H N N N O. O OH O O O O. OH ON O OH . 0 0 OH O 10 H N H H H N H H H H H R H H H H H N N H p H N N N M Q Q_ N H H A O O ON O O OH O O NN 0 A pA N M Q N �' N O N N H N N w N N N H H N N N m N OI (O ttm N O Q N O1 N tGV O 0 A A O M N d N N N N H w N N N r O1 A A M N OI O O N M d Q O O OI r N l0 (O N N M O d N M A N N N N yy N� O M M N O N N M M H N N 10 N� A O A N N m d 1� O M m N A N M ry F N r 0 0 0 N A MQ N A N O n OtDi J O A N N N O„ M N O N N p r n NH N N r H H H N w N A' A n 10 N b R Ci N O N m d O N b 0 0 N M NO n b N 0 A N J r 1�1 1IrVV ^ � O N N N N N N N w N OI N w N N N Qw w N w N w N r w ur w w r w w w w w w w cm L U o o m ° v Ti � `o W o c Zo v C ON c c R' m U o w i r B o u m a o o m m c z Eo 0 w `e ° o U n a y c c o 3 w s ED LD i z w 3 t'- 3¢ z =9 m N9 aw ¢` Z W m m Z Z Z 3 �'- w m w¢ 0 0 0 0 a o 0 o O O o a o O O O 0-- - -- - - - o 0 oN o 0 0 o b � o o 0 w w w w O O a m 'o oy oy O oN a 3` a > me 0 Z. L m w O m H c Q yL 0 N y S d 0 H y N N N O' w y N w N N y H y y N N N N N b tl OI O O Nl O O O O ON O O y Oy O O O M O M M H g N N N r p tl O O O O O ON O W O. O ON O O O O.. ON h ON O S N N y N H y n 00 N N N y y H H N N N N N H N H N g NI n' V o O o H . A o 0 o O oH 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 oy 10 N M H. N lV' I� r •O O N: N 0 N N m H < NI N y y y b' b d O O O h W W O M O N O O VI O O N N N V H YI O O W O n N WN N N 0 O b N n N W VI • N yN� N ' N < M N NN t") M b N NN N N N H H r N 001 H - ` y H N N N H N N N N H H y J^^ Q' ^ N M !G O N O O M J a N O N W Y W O M y O N N N W N b W V W �0 P N m m 10 •O W N V O N W O: C'1 N n O N n n n n O N ry W O YI n n O. n b � tl n N O W O n tl r b r d_ n A r N la'1 N ' N W � V N Y N O M b N . N . N r N N W N n t W r b N O N _ N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M N N N N N N N WN c m z t Z o' o m 0 3 o 00 m 'o v a 3` a > me 0 Z. L m w O m H c Q yL 0 o o 4 W � _ N W > Z Z 0 _ W u W S d 0 m a 0 0 W 91 n 1N m M o � U U � H W n U ? ? Q p m W S Z Z w W z a J c S O W O Q o Q o v o E ELU ? w w Z R u �pp Z-.5 a a z yy z d a y y o u0: o c O o o C U C Z O S N E a Q a u s m s to 'w w f7 (W1 CW9 Y V O V V V V1 N Ism N H iW(1 1O b b b M V V N - N N N N N I M cl".:.'.0 6.0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O -- tl N N H N N M H M M N N MI 3 O 16 m r r p N N N N N N yN N M N d H d M :Y. p O M W:. O O O O O O O O O O O N N 0 0 0 O O O N o o m in n n M m in w w c m a 3 O 16 m r r N N N N N N M d N d H d n p O M O w n w N N m m H H N 0 0 0 O O O N o o m in n n M m in m a OI. N N N r r r n W n O W N !Y' N N W N M. h a M H. M Cdl Cdl fd9 N N N N 0 N Y q W m N W d H Y N Y m Y W H m N Y W m W d W n n o 0 0 o n o N o f O O w w. N H N N n N d N dd Y'1 N N N N N N N N H W m N N N 3 O 16 m r r N N N m d N d H d N p w w N H H N H m. O N N N w N w M m a w w N w N N W N M. h a M H. M � N q Y O O w w. H N N N. H N N w H N N N Ow W N n W N m N N w N w N d b � d N N w w N Y 00 N 1N0 W d N W n nctw w w w w w m 16 m N N N N N N N H N N NI N I -. N N N N N N H N H O O O O N q O O q O O m N ' O N M N p M N N N N ry 1q0 O q Q m n V I: p O M1 N M m q N e L N m m N N No M O N � < P m N. � N' O N MN N N M1 N N N � PN M1 W N W O m N M1 O O O Q ID O b O O O MO m ON O O M1 m O N N N ^ O N N N N b N O M � O r N M N iO O ry � r N M1 P P N M N r M M1 r P r p p 0 a v m O 1` m N W V Q n e'f 1'1 10 M1 q M1 m F. F: N 0 0 0 N M1 N N H Q Q [� 1` l° -ZN b _ m N N � m 1 Or �� Q N N N N N � N N� mN N N N N N N N N N N N N N H H n Z O N U n o a a u c q v a w v q 01 � E `y m LL 'N cv n o n a n m U U U� aw ¢ (U m n o 0 0 0 0 x c '.. E E 2 E c c r V n o o y d Ev W W v � O m E f i o m m m D r r O LL q+ �i' ii ii' a ii v 5 y E c F v v oci m v fi r 3 m o o m ° iy c U U U 12 12 t2n 6 Y -^I12 `m m v a 3 o v m m a o o. m a LL m m a o o m m m i o w 3 m m¢ m¢ m u m p Z n U Om 2 U 0 m A P m m m °OI y LI O R LI L ST LL. O - r r - r r r r r r (li V'. C r r r r r r _W d m: 0 0 0 0 off o 0 O O M N 'o E W N O p M W N a d m Y N N N N N N N N N M N N N N � g yY qN L D. N N N m L• O O Y N U v o E C o x y 3 {o d R 3 0E 9 A U U c a a z O d W W W N m m= m Y o m v v 0 o v o c p n$ v < < •a°' n c u v J u J Y n a $ BU BV By n a o n o It o o n `o $ $ E c 5 m `m w al of N qq V y {� U y Z 1 U • 2 U • Z. U 2 U � 2 U i w J's o CU 6' o � � . � � •- �- � F / ) -----------©!K°°■ § ;=;;;a. .... \}.`$ } -.-}\-}----\` \ \ ( R{###&.... # --- / ) Shingleton, Christine Full Name: Don Mclean Last Name: Mclean First Name: Don Company: Driver/Alliant Business Address: PO Box 6450 Newport Bch, CA 92658-6450 United States of America Business: (949)660-8117 Business Fax: (949)756-2713 E-mail: dmclean@driveralliant.com E-mail Display As: dmclean@driveralliant.com Shingleton, Christine From: Nault, Ron Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 3:37 PM To: Shingleton, Christine Subject: FW: Don Mclean Attachments: Don Mclean.vcf The company was Westchester Surplus Lines. I've attached an a -card for the broker who helped us. Don Mclean.vcf (4 KB) David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page A2-1 APPENDIX Demographics ))k) (77 / Ci }�\ ( � 0 L6 ` !+_# «$k\7!) �|!\\). \ =CD 0 ) ; \ ® � cc \ �c 2 )�\\2 ©�«k !\!!/zFZ-6c ® !W David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page A3-1 APPENDIX Allocation Calculations N a N U b r M y ami N N N N n coi y O) t0 m r N O m N O m O T m e O N O m v_ o H 6 N LL N 10 N Y m O m O r O `- T r N r O O IC O t0 M OOi G! � O m cam v gain O U N at0t��°�2 H � Q O ^e m m w O O O Obi N N N m< � O H m YO m M n a' - N W O O M 1(j m Ol OI vrtp 0 mN ui roof N'r oiv O1� Ni Q v a N m N N O O e m m y O O 0 rn A ONj N Q N a m O m N Ol N T M M � V m N Cri � V N m m o m O O o O E! m Y M N O M V M ry m m Q w b Of y M Cl e m m N N m V M m Oi m O M m p Cl m m Q` M M r O N N a n m N M M a M Q N A N m m M r n e O N N y N_ J N _ C N N C - t N N C E r E EE E`a om�O UJEwU mrncn FQr ono 'E a� am m oZ0 o o° c E yc o oE. m _ ON flON O L NO E O t 2230_2SFUU2K KU 0EU N a N U b r M y ami N N N N n coi O N b v_ o v ri yNpN LL Yj O a' N `- T r � O U r o O m u mcm� E a rn O U N at0t��°�2 N N Z3 Q Z O N N n O O t7 O< N r r r 0 0 0 o a W o oW o N m m W a a o 0 Q a E E O E m m O r 3 U O M O O d O O O O 0 V 0 0 0 O O O N CJ M l7 t7 t7 CJ N N [O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O N N N N N N H H H H H H H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W N Q CJ j W Co F n K m a n C m r O E N G t2 ty N H H U y N LL N U N o a J j w E E N W W u W o U N Q n v � N N _ � m U 0 m n A LL m N H H r N Q a E E O E m m O r 3 U O M O O d O O O O 0 V 0 0 0 O O O N CJ M l7 t7 t7 CJ N N [O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O N N N N N N H H H H H H H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W N Q Q u w m .. n c o Q m E N G t2 ty u Q y N m Z'« a U y N LL m w O S N o a J j w E E U S J — E L o n m m U m a m •• v O m o m K j d E E U t c O J J u o am 0 o e m o aci S a w O S UI O J o - � J J F Q a E E O E m m O r 3 U O M O O d O O O O 0 V 0 0 0 O O O N CJ M l7 t7 t7 CJ N N [O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O N N N N N N H H H H H H H H H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Q m n u w m .. U 2 m m E N G t2 LL N 2 m w Z'« a n m E m J m w O S N o a J j w E E U S J — E { E §!!§§!!!! �§ �) § #{# » \\\\\\����\ {\/ - °!!f \\))m(/\\ �§ �) § \\\\\\����\ k $ § +|f |;/((\\ -`;\`12! k !!t!!-3!!! --1w !!'.a�� eeeee / | // • .. , . . . ....... !||1,,..=,,,, 55..22 , /� \ 4 |! ! \| \\S\\ � , § lw2R;:Q! ! � . . i ! (.... _ ! , § lw2R;:Q! gal . . (.... ! gal ! /\ E \� � gal \ \j j/ e\ l;.; !| � /f )! [§ ��\ � / /g .§§ , ��� - �§ !{ ) �� ��� � � �� r ƒ/ q \\ \\\ !] ! :- �/ ! ! & & ;'d VN a &z[§} ( LU \ \ ) }/( CL}(( ! \\\\ fu G\\ ;_ @ -\ ({(!) ! f\-() _ i 2- . 0�w -- \°l,ef! §{!% §!;z|k})!§](#\!)\)) !!!! §f!!e§o_=:ro«,Ja�\. �! \\ \\\ !] �/ ! ( LU \ \ David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page A4-1 APPENDIX Cost Allocations by Planning Area David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page A4-2 Table 4A (Not Used) = f E} \}\\ \ - 2 : !! /§;)//t 3 m m; o aNam?inry Nm: of N m m m r � U o ogoy O ON O p C N m w m N a p p O ONS V r m y W M E M y I ��'N°Nwoy m � E V w a. j mni Oy00N N O�HOO�i or EC o N w r m N N - m� N Nm NPIi K ym� m m M y a a � O P pj O y ILL m j O OI O O y O y O O� C c r mmNm wa U m N m g m Y � N Cry 9 m N O O w O y O ON Oo0o0yopoy r � � OhoyOywyoo N m C A oy m N m O O N n N O O N 0 0 0 0 O O P m n J LL u LL u LL u LL u LL Yu LL u ¢ m¢m¢�¢m¢`m¢ m O a a t'Y N N O O H O N mU�°UmUNUyU J yU w mc i. b wm��ipop M o e m o e o 0 o w yd H n N O r a N ri M s d N M N O N as b j� m ° m Nw N O O N Y O d L a JN CJ Of m N O U n r A w ror or ori vP0'b E9 'a O m O m N O U U U U _ d m g d Vl N N N a o N Y � U U =Y� ; Amo K 3 = O t Y ! C 0 b Nm: HYiO�mmNnNb r � O ON O ON O p O h N m w m N p p m y W M M y I ��'N°Nwoy w pm mni N n N or 0 ON o N w m N N m N m� Nm NPIi K ym� m m M a � O P pj O y O y O y O OI y < r H mmNm wa N � N O g O g O O O y O y O ON Oo0o0yopoy OhoyOywyoo oy O p O� 0 ON 0 0 0 0 O O LL u LL u LL u LL u LL Yu LL u m¢m¢�¢m¢`m¢ m¢ mU�°UmUNUyU yU Y w o e m o e o 0 o w yd H n N O r a N ri M s d N M N N as m ° � � Y d L a A m U U � A E9 O m O m N O 9 U _ = O t Y ! C 0 b i p N m m o mnON O m m N e w O 1f1 � O P m� Imn N D N N m p N VI PmPOJ I� Ip I(1 N P.m I ryN� y p m J N N m n m p F' M A A P r 9 y M1 N N r P r N n pN M N O i Q GO o � o _ N a � J �c� N y �^ F m H g Nm U m � M 0 m J y m m m ny: ad N yN 4 dv U o oZZ O J m m Oo b 1E.2 Om '^J m � N mN u my a E m r i E s o p v ry E n H ¢ m a E U y L n N O » P U r Q LL 0 mo N C m n m r Omi n LL m J h N N m N Omi d F r H r y N S m � m c m a U m ry Imnr��m C 9 � N Il LL u Il u LL u IL u Idl > > yUyUyUmUmU J QO yU m m m m Td°.n P R c IINI m N U d N N m m J y y t mg- m � U Z N YS n m N N 4 N N N K O x a O O a0 Pd m o f pm vi n r nOI N N a o u U o E E `o e KJ i p N m m o mnON O m m N e w O 1f1 � O P m� Imn N D N N m I P N y p m J N N m n m p F' M A A P r 9 y M1 N N P r N n pN M N O i Q GO o � o _ N a � J �c� N y �^ N m H g Nm m � M 0 m J y m m m ny: ad N yN 4 dv U o oZZ A m viPnm�y m m Oo b 1E.2 Om '^J T h N mN my a E m r i ^ s o p v LLu E n H ¢ m E U y L n N O » P F Q LL 0 0 a m n m r Omi n h N N m N Omi r H r y Il LL u Il u LL u IL u Idl > > yUyUyUmUmU QO yU m m Td°.n m N U d u^ d wU t m U Z m } 4 K O x lo I_ p N m m e w r P M1 y p m J N N m n m F' M A A P r 9 y M1 N N P v d N N m m pN M N m e N Q GO o � o _ N a � J �c� N y �^ N m � M p J y m m m ad N N 4 dv U o oZZ A ae`'m; K 1E.2 CGI - '^J p,n U' m a E m r i ^ s o p v LLu E n H ¢ m E U y L n N F Q LL 0 0 a _ !«r§� A ,.HVA (( ' rale � . . { }_ -})\)})}) I -el uo ® \§ 5 ) ( | !2 ° )# ![!� ) )! E}!) !/ k�! ! E �)\ k) \ (( ' rale � }_ -})\)})}) I -el uo ® \§ 5 ) ( | !2 David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page A4-8 TABLE 4G (Not Used) David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page A5-1 APPENDIX Trip Generation Factors [Insert Appendix 5, Austin Faust Report] David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page A6-1 APPENDIX 6 Employee Density Factors David Taussig and Associates, Inc. Page A6-2 Append" TABLE 6A 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 Us., of Facilities Potential Recreation Hours We* Day Number of Work Days per Week Hours Pei Weekend Day Number of Weekend Days Per Week Potential Recreakon Hours Per Week Per Person Reacted, no-aKi-Mrg 12 5 12 2 84 Resident,x rkdng 2 5 12 2 34 Employee (Commerdalllndustrlal) 2 5 0 2 10 1. Total Hours of Potential Parks and Open Space Facilities Usage Per Week. (Single Family) Poisoned Recreation Employees per Patenlial Recmatan Hcum Week Type OtEmployee 1,000 Square Feet [3] NeumMeek per Person Pptental Recreaton Commercial Employee Number Per Potential Remained Hours,Week Office 309 10 Type Of Resident Household [1, 2) HoumM1Week per Person per Household Senior Congregate Care 2.18 10 Resident, m,.rkhg 1.65 04 138 Resident, wcrung 1.70 34 58 Total 3,35 196 2. Total Hours of Potential Parks Usage per Weak (MUIG-Family) Potential Recreate, Number Per Potential Recreation Hous Week Type Of Resident Household[1, 2] HourshWeek per Person per Household Resident, ton-,aorkitg 1.34 84 113 Resident, worin, 1.39 34 47 Total 273 160 3. Total Hours of Potential Parks Usage per Weak. (Commercial) Poisoned Recreation Employees per Patenlial Recmatan Hcum Week Type OtEmployee 1,000 Square Feet [3] NeumMeek per Person per Househdd Commercial Employee Retail Other 1.61 10 16 Office 309 10 31 Hotel 2.18 10 22 Senior Congregate Care 2.18 10 22 Health Club/Theater 1.61 10 16 4, Total Hours of Potential Parks Usage per Week. (Industrial) Potential Recreation Employees per Potental Recreation Hou.Maek Type Of Employee 1.000 Square Feet [3) Hounn Week per Person per Household Industrial Employee 1 ]4 10 17 Total 1.74 17