HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 85-103FREE RECORDING. ren,,Qsted
�--�• under Government Sec. 6103. 85—V "349
RECORDING REQUESTED
RY AND MAIL TO
CITY 0,1F T USTHN
300 C-ritennia!
Tustin, CA 92680
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
251
i
26
I
27
281
RESOLUTION NO. 85-103 EXEMPT
C14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN ESTABLISHING THE AREA OF BENEFIT AND
THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM
FOR THE FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
WHEREAS, buildout of the land use element of the General Plan of the
City of Tustin is dependent upon providing a balanced transportation system to
serve the planned level of development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that implementation of the Foothill
and Eastern Transportation Corridors will result in a transportation system
which has the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic volume associated
with anticipated future development; and
WHEREAS, implementaton of the Foothill and Eastern Transportation
.Corridors will help to relieve congestion on the existing transportation
(system; and
j WHEREAS, future state and federal revenue are projected to be
linadequate to construct and transportation corridors in a timely manner; and
WHEREAS, the City council finds that future development should pay a
share of the cost of implementing new transportation corridors to insure that
the transportation system will be adequate to serve said development and that
this share of the corridor costs should be proportional to the traffic
generated by the development; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 948 of the City of Tustin provides for
!the establishment of major thoroughfare and bridge construction fees to be paid
!by building permit applicants in the City of Tustin; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the possible adoption of the
fee program was given to all property owners as provided in Ordinance No. 948;
and
WHEREAS, the property owners within the area of benefit did not file a
majority written protest to the establishment of the Foothill/Eastern
Transportation Corridor Fee Program; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was issued as a result of initial
studies prepared to assess the environmental impacts which might be associated
with the adoption of the major thoroughfare and bridge fee program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The boundary of the area of benefit shall be as described
in the document dated July 1985 entitled "Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee
Program for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors" ("Program")
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1G
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION N0. 85-103
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN ESTABLISHING THE AREA OF BENEFIT AND
THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM
FOR THE FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
WHEREAS, buildout of the land use element of the General Plan of the
I!, City of Tustin is dependent upon providing a balanced transportation system to
'.serve the planned level of development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that implementation of the Foothill
and Eastern Transportation Corridors will result in a transportation system
which has the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic volume associated
with anticipated future development; and
' WHEREAS, implementaton of the Foothill and Eastern Transportation
Corridors will help to relieve congestion on the existing transportation
system; and
WHEREAS, future state and federal revenue are projected to be
linadequate to construct and transportation corridors in a timely manner; and
WHEREAS, the City council finds that future development should pay a
share of the cost of implementing new transportation corridors to insure that
the transportation system will be adequate to serve said development and that
this share of the corridor costs should be proportional to the traffic
generated by the development; and
~ WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 948 of the city of Tustin provides for
the establishment of major thoroughfare and bridge construction fees to be paid
by building permit applicants in the City of Tustin; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the possible adoption of the
fee program was given to all property owners as provided in Ordinance No. 948;
and
WHEREAS, the property owners within the area of benefit did not file a
'majority written protest to the establishment of the Foothill/Eastern
'Transportation Corridor Fee Program; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was issued as a result of initial
studies prepared to assess the environmental impacts which might be associated
with the adoption of the major thoroughfare and bridge fee program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The boundary of the area of benefit shall be as described
in the document dated July 1985 entitled "Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee
Program for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors" ("Pragram")
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein.
i
SECTIf~. The estimated cost of thes for thoroughfares and
bridges are as fo~ows:
Foothill/Eastern
Transportation Corridors $516,147,000.00
The Program is presently designed to collect 48,5% of the cost of construction
of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors.
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 3: The fees for development within the area of benefit are
based on t e trip ends generated by the development as determined from the Trip
Generation Tables included in the Program and shall be assessed upon new
development based upon the number of dwelling units included in the development
(for residential projects) or the gross square footage of the development (for
non-residential projects) in those amounts as set forth in the Area of Benefit
Fee Table included in the Program.
SECTION 4: An automatic adjustment of the fees, based upon the
Construct o~ost Tndex, shall be made each fiscal year commencing in fiscal
year 1986-87, An adjustment of the fee based upon updated project cost
estimates or other changed conditions shall be made in lieu of the Annual Cost
Index Adjustment when necessary.
SECTION 5: The collection of the fee shall be a condition of issuance
of a build n~ g permit as described in the Program. The payment of fees may be
deferred for all residential rental projects or projects which include State or
Federal requirements to provide units affordable to families with incomes less
than 80% of the median income for those time periods and subject to those terms
and conditions set forth in Section IX of the Program. Fee credits shall be
granted for dedications and work performed for the corridors as set forth in
Section XI of the Program.
SECTION 6: In the event the city executes the "Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement Creating the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency"
("Agreement"), upon the effective date of said Agreement, the City shall remit
all fees collected pursuant to the Program to the Joint Powers Agencies created
by said Agreement pursuant to; the terms and conditions of said Agreement. In
the event the City executes said Agreement, any person aggrieved by a decision
of the City regarding the amount of any corridor fee imposed or fee credit
granted may appeal the decision of the City to the Foothill/Eastern
Transportation Corridor Agency, where appropriate, which decision shall be
final.
SECTION 7: This Resolution shall be effective upon the effective date
of Ordinance No.-T9 8, establishing the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee
Program.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the
California, this 21st day of
City Council of the City of Tustin,
October 1985.
~~
rranK n, ure~nKe
Mayor
ATTEST:
1.4~ ~-~n-, _
Mary ynn
City Cler~~ '`~
~_
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
AND
BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM
FOR.
SAN JOAQUiN HILLS
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
AND
FOOTHILL/EASTERN
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
PREPARED BY
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
TRANSPORTATION/FLOOD CONTROL PROGRAM OFFICE
JULY 1985
EXH/O/T ~1 '
~; 4 f ~-
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM
FO R
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
AND
FOOTHILL/EASTERAI TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
Prepared by
Environmental Management Agency
Transportation/F1ood Control Program Office
JULY 1985
a
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE
Executive Summary 1
I Background 3
II Description of Corridor 4
III Corridor Planning 5
IV Estimated Costs o
V Overall Financing ~
VI Area of Benefit g
VII Description of area of Benefit (A0B) 10
VIII r'ees 15
ZX Deferral of Fees 21
X Criteria for Collection of Fees 21
XI Development Exactions & Credits 21
XII Annual Fee Adjus t-nent 24
XIII City Participation in r^ee Program 24
DT20-4
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT NO. TITLE PAGE
I Area of Aenefit Index Map with City Boundaries 25
II Resolution 82-598, Transportation Corridor 26
Development Policy
III Area of Influence for Corridor Users, 29
San Joaquin dills Transportation Corridor
IV Area of Influence for Corridor Users, 30
Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors
V Area of Benefit, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor 31
VI Area of Benefit, Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors 32
VIZ Fee Program Share of Total Corridor Cost, SJHTC 33
VIII Fee Program Share of Total Corridor Cost, F/ETC 35
IX Cost Per Trip End Analysis, SJHTC 37
X Cost Per Trip End Analysis, F/FTC 38
XI Daily Vehicle Trip Generation Rates 39
LIST OF TAALFS
TABLE NO. TITLE; PAGE
IV-1 San Joaquin Hills Transportation_Corridor Cost 6
IV-2 Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Cost 7
VII-1 San Joaquin Hills AOB by Local Jurisdiction 10
VII-2 Foothill/Eastern AOB by Local Jurisdiction 13
VIII-1 Fee Program Share of Corridor Cost 16
VIII-2 Adjusted AOB Trip Ends 17
VIII-3 Fee Program Share by Land Use Category 18
VIII-4 Area of Benefit Fees 18
DT20-4
r ..
5 # ~ i
MAJOR TIiOROUGHFARE AIQD BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM
FO R
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS AND FOOTHILL/EASTERN
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
Executive Summary
It can no longer be expected that facilities such as the San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) and Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors
(F/ETC) can be fully funded from the traditional revenue sources used to
construct southern California's existing freeway network. Supplemental
funding sources must therefore be developed if these important components of
Orange County's transportation system are to be developed to provide relief to
existing congested facilities and support orderly development within cities
and unincorporated areas. Development fees represent a potential supplemental
funding source and as such have been under consideration by the Board of
Supervisors for some time.
The development fee program prepared for Board of Supervisors consideration is
based upon Government Code Sections 50029, 56484.3 and California ~~onstitution
Article 11, Section 7. The concept is furthermore based on the general
principle that future development within prescribed benefit areas will benefit
from the construction of the transportation facilities and should pay for them
in proportion to projected corridor traffic demand attributable to the
development. Future development wi*_hin the benefit areas is expected to
account for 48$ of the cost of the SJHTC and F/ETC. The remaining cost of the
corridors, representing benefits derived by existing development within the
benefit areas and Corridor users outside the benefit areas, is proposed to be
funded through traditional transportation funding sources such as existing
federal and state programs. No assessment of existing developed property is
proposed.
Corridor usage projections for several hundred traffic analysis zones within
the County were developed as a tool to assist in defining the proposed benefit
areas. Traffic analysis zones with 4$ or more of their total trip making
utilizing the corridor formed a fairly dense pattern. Identifiable physical
features closely approximating the pattern were used to describe the bound-
aries of the benefit areas. Two fee zones within each area of benefit were
established based upon direct use of the corridors. Traffic analysis zones
with 8~ or more of their total trip making utilizing the corridor were defined
in the higher fee zone (A). The remainder of the zones were defined in the
lower fee zone (B).
Assessment of fees on a traffic related basis was determined to be equitable.
Trip ends were selected as the least common denominator and fees were
established by dividing the proportion of corridor cost attributable to each
fee zone by the total number of projected daily trip ends within each fee
zone. Adjust.-nents were made to trip ends between neighborhood commercial and
residential land uses to reflect the relative benefit of neighborhood
commercial development to residences. Land uses ~,~ere combined .into three
general land use categories (2 residential and 1 non-residential) for the
purposes of applying fees to development projects.
-1-
r
~ ~~ ~ ~
Fees for each of the fee zones within the areas of benefit are:
SJHTC Single Family Multi-Unit Von-Residential
Residential Residential
Zone A $1,305/unit $760/unit $1.75/sf.
Zone 3 $1,010/unit $590/unit $1.30/sf.
F/ETC
Zone A $1,295/unit $755/unit 51.80/sf.
Zone 3~ $ 920/unit $535/unit $1.05/sf.
Developers who are required to construct portions of the transportation
corridors will receive credit for that work toward the payment of their fees.
The amount of credit will not be adjusted with subsequent revisions to the fee
program once it is memorialized by agreement. This credit may be transferred
to another landowner within the same area of benefit only with the change in
title to the land.
Payment of fees for residential multi-unit rental projects may he deferred for
a period of 5 years from issuance of a building permit. The developer must
enter into an agreement to pay the fee in effect at the time payment is due
and provide a security in the amount of the fee plus 15$.
Properties which are exempt from payment of oroperty taxes will generally be
exempt from payment of corridor fees. Governmental owned and constructed
facilities and utilities will be exempt unless the facility is used for
commercial or revenue generating purposes.
Portions of twelve cities are included within the benefit areas for the SJHTC
and F/ETC. The County may adopt a fee program only within the unincorporated
areas. Participation by cities, therefore, is an important ingredient to a
successful program that does not create inequities to property owners within
differing jurisdictions. City and County cooperation is not only required in
the adoption of a program and collection of fees, but should extend to
decisions regarding expenditure of the funds. It is planned that Joint Powers
Agencies consisting of City and County members will be created to plan and
implement the Corridors. All fees collected under this program will be
deposited in accounts specifically for the transportation corridors to
accomplish this purpose.
-2-
,;
k
:MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM
FO R
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS AND FOOTHILL/EASTERN
TRAPdSPORTATION CORRIDORS
I. BACKGROUND
Government Code Sections 50029 and 66484.3 and California Constitution
Article 11, Section 7 permits the establishment of local ordinances to
require payment of fees as a condition of approval of a final map or as a
condition of issuing a building permit for purposes of defraying the
actual or estimated cost of constructing bridges over waterways, railways,
freeways and canyons, or constructing major thoroughfares.
Pursuant to the above provisions of the Government Code, and the Police
Powers the Board of Supervisors adopted Section 7-9-316 of the Orange
County Codified Ordinances providing for the establishment of major
thoroughfare and bridge construction fees to be paid by subdividers and
building permit applicants in the County of Orange.
On April 21, 1982, the 3oard of Supervisors, by Resolution 82-598,
directed the Environmental ~4anagement Agency (EMA) to begin analyzing
potential areas of benefit as an adjunct to the Orange County/Orange
County Trarlspartation Commission - Transportation r^inance Study and to
proceed with the establishment of a fee program. The 3oard, furthermore,
determined that developers of subdivisions which contain portions of any
transportation corridor, would dedicate right-of-way, grade and construct
necessary portions of the corridor and participate in any established
corridor fee program.
On February 15, 1983 the Board of Supervisors, by Resolution 83-239, iden-
tified interim areas of impact for the San Joaquin Hills and
Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors and directed EMA to require
subdividers to enter into contracts to participate in corridor implement-
ation pending establishment of a fee program.
On September 28, 1983, ~'IA submitted a report on the Transportation
Corridor Fee Programs to the Board of Supervisors for referral to the
Planning Cortnnission for recommendations. Public meetings were subse-
3uently held by the Planning Commission on October 11 and November 1, 1983
to consider the [Major Thoroughfare and Bridge c^ee Programs.
On January 30, 1984 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 45-83
recommending that the 3oard of Supervisors adopt Major Thoroughfare and
Bridge Fee Programs for the San Joaquin Hi11s Transportation Corridor and
the r^oothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor.
On October 3, 1984 the Board of Supervisors, by Resolution 84-1462,
adopted areas of Benefit and Major Thoroughfare and Bridge fees within
unincorporated Orange County for the San Joaquin dills and
Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors. Subsequent cooperative
analysis of the fee program by Orange County, Orange County Transportation
-3-
,;;
~;
Commission, 3uilding Industry Association, and cities within the areas of
benefit have lead to the revisions contained within this report.
II. DESCRIPTION OF CORRIDOR
A TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR is a high-speed, high volume, access-controlled
multimodal facility with a median of sufficient width to be utilized for
transit considerations such as fixed rail or high-occupancy vehicles. The
corridors will provide for high speed movement of vehicular traffic where
projected volumes exceed major arterial highway capacities. These routes
will function similarly to freeways and expressways and should eventually
be incorporated into the freeway and expressway system. They are,
therefore, designed to meet minimum State and Federal standards.
The relatively rapid growth and planned future development in Orange
County is contributing directly to the need for major transportation
corridors. Three such corridors (r^oothill, East?rn and San Joaquin Hi11s)
are included on the `Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), a component
of the Transportation Element of the Orange County general Plan.
Transportation corridors are depicted on the "MPAi3 map as either concept-
ually proposed or established alignments. These facilities are part of a
planned traffic circulation system necessary to support development of the
County in accordance with County and City land use plans. These
facilities will also relieve recurrent congestion on major arterials and
freeways in Orange County as concluded by several recent studies: Multi-
Modal Transportation Study (1980), Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Study
(1981); Foothill Transportation Corridor Study (1981), and the San Joaquin
Hills Transportation Corridor Study (1979).
The SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION COPRIDOR is planned as a high-speed,
high capacity, access-controlled transportation facility to serve local
and regional traffic and transit needs. It is an established alignment on
the MPAH which includes the Corona del Mar r^reeway (Route 73) in the
Cities of Costa Mesa, Newport 3each and Irvine and extends southeasterly
approximately 15 miles to join the San Diego r^^reeway (I-S) between Avery
Parkway and Junipero Serra Road near the City of San Juan Capistrano (see
Exhibit I). It will be designed to comport to scenic highway standards
and provide approximately six to ten general purpose travel lanes with a
median of sufficient width to accommodate future high-occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lanes and special transit facilities if required. The central
segment of the corridor carries the greatest amount of traffic because
there are a limited number of other parallel highway facilities. Traffic
volumes on the south end of the corridor are lowest along the route as a
result of countraide traffic orientation, which is generally to the north.
Access to the corridor will be limited to approximately 12 grade-separated
interchanges with arterial highways plus provisions for future additional
exclusive interchange ramps for HOV lanes. Additional bridges may be
required as the corridors cross substantial canyons and water courses.
The EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR is currently shown as a conceptual
alignment on the MPAH. The FOGTHILL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOP, is an
-'-
:~
~,
established alignment between the Eastern Corridor and a point northerly
of Ortega Highway and a conceptual alignment between that point and San
Diego Freeway (I-5). As depicted on Exhibit I, the Eastern Transportation
Corridor will intersect the Riverside Freeway (Route 91) bet:veen ~1eir
Canyon Road and Gypsum Canyon Road extending southeasterly approx. 13
miles to a point southerly of the Santa Ana rr^reeway (I-5) in the Cities of
Tustin and Irvine. The Foothill Transportation Corridor will originate
from the Eastern Corridor between Santiago Canyon Road and Irvine
Boulevard and extend southeasterly approx. 32 miles to the San Diego
Freeway (I-5) below San Clemente in San Diego County. It is anticipated
the Eastern corridor will be a landscaped, grade separated scenic corridor
which includes approximately six general purpose travel lanes and the
Foothill Corridor, a landscaped corridor which includes four to six
general purpose travel lanes with medians or other areas wide enough to
accommodate HOV/Special Transit requirements if necessary. Access to the
corridor will be limited to grade-separated interchanges with arterial
Highways plus provisions for future exclusive interchange ramps for HOV
lanes.
III. CORRIDOR PLANNING
The level of facility planned in this report will support currently
adopted land use plans of the County and Cities surrounding the corridors.
In the event the Cities and County subsequently augment their existing
General Plan land uses, particularly in areas serving the Foothill and
Eastern Corridors, those facilities may require increased lanes to
accommodate that growth. It is intended that the fee adopted under this
program will be reevaluated if an additional level facility is identified
to serve increased adopted land uses. The majority of .the length of
corridor alignments fall within relatively undeveloped areas of the
County. Exceptions to this are either end of the San Joaquin dills
Transportation Corridor and the central segments of the r^oothill/Eastern
Transportation Corridors. Each corridor traverses areas of hilly terrain.
A majority of the areas traversed by the corridors is zoned Planned
Community with tentative tracts proceeding in various stages of approval.
An alignment was selected by the Board of Supervisors for the San Joaquin
Hills Transportation Corridor on November 28, 1979 and the northwesterly
segment of the Foothill Corridor on iday 25, 1983. More detailed
engineering work is currently underway on the San Joaguin Hills
Transportation Corridor to refine the selected alignment and determine
right-of-way requirements. Similar detailed engineering is also in
progress for the northwesterly segment of the Foothill Transportation
Corridor through developer studies of surrounding lands. Alignment
selection studies are well underway on the Eastern Corridor and just
getting started for the southerly end of the Foothill Corridor b2tweetl
about Oso Parkway and I-5.
It is proposed that all corridors will eventually be added to the State
3ighway System. State legislation (AB 86) has been aigned into law which
redescribes State Route 73 (Corona Del Mar r^^reeway) to include the San
Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor.
-5-
~~
i
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The construction costs within this report include estimates for all
corridor grading and general travel lane improvements including bridges,
structural section, interchanges, partial landscaping, and arterial
highway realignments dictated by the corridor alignments. The cost of
grading general High-occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes is included but not the
cost of HOV structural section,. bridges, median barriers or special access
ramps. It is intended that implementation of any transit guideway or HOV
facilities, if needed, would be provided from other funding sources.
Other costs included for both Corridors includes engineering design,
administration, construction inspection and right-of-way acquisition
costs.
It is proposed that developers will dedicate the majority of right-of-way
for the transportation corridors. The cost estimate includes a cost for
the portion of the right-of-way which would exceed a standard major
arterial highway constructed along the corridor alignment excluding slope
easements. The portion of right-of-way equivalent to a major arterial
highway is excluded from the estimate to maintain a policy consistent with
other arterial highway dedications. The cost of slope easements is
excluded because of the wide variations between the natural terrain condi-
tions and final development of adjacent lands, the inability to estimate
the easement areas with certainty, and for consistency with existing
arterial development policy. Right-of-way required to realign any inter-
secting arterial :Zighway was also excluded from the cost estimate on the
assumption that it will be dedicated in accordance with established
development policy. The right-of-way to be included as part of the
corridor cost was assumed to have a value of $50,000/acre.
A. SAN JOAQUZN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR (SJHTC)
The cost of constructing the SJHTC to the standard of improvement as
described in the previous section is based on estimates prepared for
the County during the Phase II SJHTC study work and is estimated to
be:
TABLE IV-1
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR COST
Construction:
Engineering & Admin.:
Contingencies:
Right Of ~Aay (in excess
of ylajor Arterial Hwy.):
Total (for purposes
of Fee Program):
$259,736,000
38,960,000
25,974,000
16,990,000
$341,660,000
-6-
B. FOO`T'HILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS (r^^/ETC)
The cost for constructing the Foothill/Eastern Transportation
Corridors was estimated from information obtained from the Weir Canyon
Park Road Study dated October, 1982, the Foothill Transportation
Corridor Route Location Study dated December, 1982, and projection of
costs from the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Unit prices
used in the cost estimates are considered to adequately estimate the
cost in 1984 dollars. The estimated costs are as follows:
TABLE IV-2
FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS COST
Foothill Eastern Total
Construction: $233,557,000 $143,526,000 $377,083,000
Eng. & Admin.: 35,033,000 21,528,500 56,561;500
Contingencies: 35,033,000 21,528,500 56,561,500
Right Of Way
(in excess of
Major Art. Hwy.): 14,151,000 11,790,000 25,941,000
Total (for purposes
of rr^ee Program): $317,774,000 $198,373,000 $516,147,000
V. OVERALL FINANCING
The Board of Supervisors has established a transportation corridor
development policy (Exhibit II) which defines the corridor implementation
obligations of land development orojects, and as noted in Section I of
ti~is report has indicated its general intent to require all new
development to bear a portion of the cost of the corridors by payment of
development fees (Major Thoroughfare Fee). Funds from other more
traditional sources (e.g., existing state and federal taxes on motor
vehicle fuel} will be sought for the portion of the cost not funded by
development fees. These other funds would be allocated through processes
involving the California Transportation Commission and the Orange County
Transportation Commission (OCTC).
In order to qualify for state and federal funding, the corridor routes
must be incorporated into the state highway system and placed in one of
the federal aid systems. State Route 73 (Corona Del Mar rr^reeway) has been
legislatively redescribed to correspond with the route of San Joaquin
Hills Transportation Corridor. It is intended that at an appropriate time
similar legislation will ultimately be introduced to place the
Foothill/Eastern Corridors in the state highway system.
This Major Thoroughfare & Bridge Fee report focuses only on the portion of
the corridor implementation costs which may be attributable to new growth
and for which development fees are proposed.
-7-
S
The statutes identified in Section I of this report which authorize the
collection of development fees specify that an Area of Benefit (ACB) shall
be established which encompasses real property, which will benefit from
construction of the major thoroughfares and bridges. The method of
determining the ACB and the share of total corridor costs proposed to be
paid by new development in the form of fees is explained in Sections VI
and VIII of this report.
The estimated corridor costs and the portions proposed to be allocated to
new development through the :Major Thoroughfare and Bridge (MT&B) fee
program are:
yew Development
Approximate
Total Cost Share of Cost ~
San Joaquin ~ii11s: $341,660,000 $165,500,104 48.4$
Foothill/Eastern: $516,147,000 $250,228,06b 48.5$
VI.
In accordance with current Board of Supervisors' policy, new developments
within the bath of the transportation corridors will be conditioned to
dedicate right-of-way and grade the corridor within the boundaries of the
development, construct arterial overcrossings for internal arterial
highways and construct corridor travel lanes and interchange ramps
required immediately for access to the development or for closure of short
gaps in the transportation system. The estimated cost of these
improvements including-the estimated value of R/~rT dedication in excess of
that required for a standard major arterial highway (excluding slope
easements) will be considered as a credit against the required MT&B fees
to the extent that these costs are included in the fee program.
AREA OF BF,NEF I't
In order to establish an MT&B fee program, an Area of Benefit (ACB) must
be identified within which fees may be required upon issuance of building
permits or recordation of final maps to defray the cost of the major
thoroughfares and bridges.
Construction of the transportation corridors will provide key facilities
to ensure that the County's transportation system is in balance with both
existing and future land uses. The benefits, *_herefore, accrue not only
to those properties which generate a high demand for use of the corridor
but those which will benefit from less congestion and delay on the
arterial highway and freeway system serving the property. Implementation
of a balanced transportation system, including the corridors, will,
furthermore, benefit undeveloped properties by allowing approval of land
use to the level in County and City General Plans.
It is clear that both existing developed properties and undeveloped
properties will benefit from construction of the transportation corridors.
Development fees are proposed to finance a portion of the corridors
proportional to the traffic demands, measured in trip ends, created by new
-8-
growth. The portion of cost based upon existing trip ends represents the
benefit to developed properties. Revenue for the cost allocated to
existing development will be provided from public funding sources
identified in Section V, "Overall Financing," of this report and,
therefore, swill not be assessed to individual properties.
The methodology used to determine the AOB consisted of determining the
influence the corridor had on trips made within the County. The analysis
was conducted with a system of computer programs known as UTPS1 (Urban
Transportation Planning Systems). The computer programs were tailored for
specific Orange County application and are commonly known as the SOCCS2
travel demand model.
The model subdivides Orange County and portions of adjacent Los Angeles
County into more than 500 traffic analysis zones (TAZ). The model esti-
mates the number of person trips each TAZ generates based on socioeconomic
variables such as population, employment, income and number of housing
units. These trios are then distributed from each zone to all other zones
by a well-established procedure. The model then determines how many of
these person trips will .travel by auto, and finally assigns these auto
trips onto a highway network. The socioeconomic data used in the AOB
analysis is from the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Study and
the Foothill Transportation Corridor Study.
Using the trio-making data described above, a select link analysis
(program UROAD3) was performed to determine the number of corridor related
trip ends which originate in, or are destined for, each traffic analysis
zone (TAZ). These corridor-TAZ trip ends were used in conjunction with
the total TAZ trip ends (arterial 'Highways plus corridor) to compute the
percentage of trip ends by TAZ which use the corridor. The resulting
percentages were posted on TAZ maps in 2~ increments (Exhibits IZI and
IV).
The influence area for each of the corridors is quite pronounced at the ~~
and greater trip use level as shown on the exhibits. The pattern of
corridor usage becomes erratic below the 4~ level.
The determination of the AOB for each of the transportation corridors was
based primarily on the above corridor influence areas. However, the
following additional criteria were used to supplement the percent of
corridor use data to analyze relative benefits:
lUTPS is a battery of sophisticated computer programs developed and sponsored
by the Federal Urban Mass Transportation Agency (UMTA} for forecasting travel
demand.
2South Orange County Circulation Study (SOCCS) travel demand forecasting model
developed by EMA/Transportation Planning Division.
3UROAD is one of the computer programs in UTPS. It is a comprehensive
flexible highway assignment and analysis program.
-9-
. ~ _ , ~ ' r
~.
~ ~
1. Corridor trip ends exceed 1.75 trio ends per gross acre of t_he TAZ.
2. Total corridor trip ends per TAZ exceed 2,000.
3. Trip end growth within each TAZ exceeds 45$.
4. Perceived direct and indirect benefits to the transportation system.
Identifiable physical and planned features closely approximating the
pattern of corridor usage were used to describe the boundaries of the
benefit areas.
Within each area of benefit, some lands were judged to receive more
benefit than others from the construction of the corridors. Developments
which create relatively high demands for use of the corridors were placed
in a different fee zone within the area of benefit than other developments
with less direct use. The boundaries between the fee zones were
determined utilizing the TAZ data on Exhibits III and IV. Traffic
analysis zones ~vhere the percentage of corridor trip ends equals or
exceeds 8~ were defined as Zone A. Traffic analysis zones with less than
8$ use were defined as Zone B. Zone A and B are depicted on Exhibit I.
VII. DESCRIPTION OF AREA OF BENEFIT (AOB~
The AOB's for the San Joaquin Hills and the combined Foothill/Eastern
Corridors include both incorporated and unincorporated territory and
generally encompass the southeasterly half of Orange County as illustrated
on Exhibit I.
A. SAN JOAQUIiQ HILLS TRAt1SPORTATION CORRIDOR
A more detailed map of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor
AOB is shown on Exhibit V. This AOB contains approximately
122 square miles. All or portions of the following cities are within
this AOB:
T_j1BLE VII-1
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS AOB BY LOCAL JURISDICTION
City
Costa Mesa
Irvine
Laguna Beach
Newport Beach
San Clemente
San Juan Capistrano
Santa Ana
City Subtotal
Unincorporated Territory
Total
Area Included in AOB
3.2 sq. miles
22.2
5.6
8.3
3.8
8.2
2.8
54. 1
68.3
122.4 sq. miles
-10-
The AOB is bounded by the Pacific Ocean: beginning at the easterly
boundary of the City of Newport Beach at the Pacific Ocean; thence
along said external boundary defined by annexation nos. 843, 64, 897,
84, and 585 to its intersection with an extension of Fifth Avenue;
thence northwesterly along said extension to Fifth Avenue; thence
northwesterly along the centerline of said Fifth Avenue to Coast
Highway; thence northwesterly along the centerline of said Coast
Highway to the crossing of the Upper Newport Bay; ,thence along a line
northerly through said Upper Newport Bay to the point where the Santa
Ana-Delhi Channel (Facility FO1) enters said L'pper Netaport Say; thence
along the centerline of Santa Ana-Delhi Channel from Upper Newport Say
to University Drive; thence westerly along the centerline of said
University Drive to Santa Ana Avenue; thence northerly along the
centerline of said Santa Ana Avenue to Corona Del Mar Freeway (State
Route 73); thence northwesterly along the centerline of said Corona
Del Mar Freeway to the San Diego Freeway (Interstate Route 405);
thence westerly along the centerline of said San Diego rr^reeway to
Harbor Blvd.; thence northerly along the centerline of said Harbor
Blvd, to tacArthur Blvd.; thence easterly along the centerline of said
MacArthur Blvd. to Main Street; thence northerly along the centerline
of said ~1ain Street to Dyer Road; thence easterly along the centerline
of said Dyer Road to Grand Avenue; thence northerly along the
centerline of said Grand Avenue to Edinger Avenue; thence easterly
along the centerline of said Edinger Avenue to the Newport-Costa Mesa
r^^reeway (State Route 55); thence southwesterly along the centerline of
said Newport-Costa Mesa r^reeway to Warner Avenue; thence southeasterly
along the centerline of said 'darner Avenue to Red Hill Avenue; thence
southwesterly along the centerline of said Red Hill Avenue to Alton
Avenue; thence northwesterly along the centerline of said Alton Avenue
to the Newport-Costa :Mesa r^reeway; thence southwesterly along the
centerline of said Newport-Costa 'desa Freeway to the San Diego r^^reeway
(Interstate 405); ti~ence southeasterly along the centerline of said
Interstate 405 to Interstate 5; thence southerly along the centerline
of said Interstate 5 to its intersection with the prolongation of the
southerly boundary of Rancho tdission Viejo (approximately at Via
Escolar); thence southeasterly along the Rancho Mission Viejo boundary
line as described by Record of Survey 9/15-18 to the easterly corner
of Tract No. 6381; thence westerly along the southerly line of said
Tract No. 6381 to the easterly boundary at Parcel Map No. 80-851;
thence southerly along said easterly boundary or Parcel Mao No. 80-851
to Rancho Viejo Road; thence southerly along the centerline of said
Rancho Viejo Road to Ortega Highway; thence easterly along the
centerline of said Ortega Highway to La Novia Avenue; thence southerly
along the centerline of said La Novia .venue and its ?roposed
extension to Tentative Tract No. 11648; thence southerly along the
easterly boundary of said Tentative Tract No. 11648 to the boundary of
Tentative Tract No. 11832; thence southerly along the easterly
boundary of said Tentative Tract No. 11332 to the northerly ba~ndary
of Tract No. 8087; thence easterly and southerly along the boundary
of said Tract No. 8087 to the boundary of Tract No. 9784; thence
easterly along the northerly boundary of said Tract No. 9784 and the
prolongation of said boundary to the boundary of the City of San Juan
-11-
y. &
Capistrano; thence southeasterly along said city external boundary
defined by Incorporation boundaries of April 19, 1961 and annexation
nos. 105 and 24 and deannexation per City resolution 62-11-13-2 to
Interstate 5; thence southerly along the centerline of said
Interstate 5 to its intersection with the Orange/San Diego County
line; and thence southerly along said County line to the Pacific
Ocean.
Zone A
Zone A is bounded on the south by the Pacific Ocean and is described
as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the total area of
benefit westerly boundary with the Pacific Ocean; thence along said
total area of benefit boundary to Marguerite Avenue; thence northerly
along the centerline of said Marguerite Avenue to San Joaquin Hi11s
Road; thence easterly along the center line of said San Joaquin Hills
Road to Spyglass Hill Road;.thence northerly along the centerline of
said Spyglass Hill Road to San :Miguel Drive; thence northerly along
the centerline of said San Miguel Drive to Ford Road; thence
northeasterly along the centerline of said Ford Road and its proposed
northeasterly extension as shown on the Orange County Master Plan of
Arterial Highways dated August 8, 1984, to Bonita Canyon Road; thence
easterly along the center line of said Bonita Canyon Road to the
proposed southerly extension of Sand Canyon Avenue as shown on said
Kaster Plan of Arterial Highways; thence easterly along the centerline
of the proposed extension of Sand Canyon Avenue to the westerly
extension of Bake Parkway as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial
Highways; thence easterly along the centerline of the proposed
extension of said Bake Parkway to Laguna Canyon Road; thence southerly
along the centerline of said Laguna Canyon Road to the proposed
westerly extension of Santa Maria Avenue as shown on said Master Plan
of Arterial Highways; thence easterly along the centerline of the
proposed extension of Santa Maria Avenue and Santa Maria Avenue to
Moulton Parkway; thence southerly along the centerline of said Moulton
Parkway to E1 Toro Road, thence northeasterly along the centerline of
said. E1 Toro Road to Paseo de Valencia; thence southeasterly along the
centerline of said Paseo de Valencia and its easterly prolongation to
intersect Interstate 5 which is also the easterly boundary of the
total area of benefit; thence southerly along said easterly boundary
of the total area of benefit boundary to where it again intersects
Interstate 5 in the vicinity of Camino Las Ramblas; thence northerly
along the centerline of said Interstate 5 to San Juan Creek Road;
thence westerly along the centerline of said San Juan Creek Road to
Camino Capistrano; thence northerly along the centerline of said
Camino Capistrano to Del Obispo Street; thence westerly along the
centerline of said Del Obispo Street to Alipaz Street; thence
southerly along the centerline of said Alipaz Street to Camino Del
Avion; thence westerly along the centerline of said Camino Del Avion
and its proposed westerly prolongation as shown on said Master Plan of
Arterial Highways, to Crown Valley Parkway; thence southerly along the
centerline of said Crown Valley Parkway to Monarch Bay Drive; thence
southwesterly along Monarch Bay Drive and its southwesterly
prolongation to the Pacific Ocean.
-12-
Zone B
Zone B is described by the total San Joaquin Hills area of benefit
excluding Zone A as described above.
B. FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
A single area of benefit was selected for the combined Foothill and
Eastern Transportation Corridors because of corridor usage patterns.
A more detailed map of the Foothill/Eastern Corridors AOB is shown on
Exhibit VI. This AOB contains approximately 291 square miles. All or
portions of the following cities are included in this AOB:
TABLE VII-2
FOOTHILL/EASTERN AOB BY LOCAL JURISDICTION
City
Anaheim
Irvine
Orange
San Clemente
San Juan Capistrano
Santa Ana ~.
Tustin
Villa Park
Yorba Linda
City Subtotal
Unincorporated Territory
Area Included in AOB
14.1 sq. miles
18.9
10.6
13.5
5.0
2.8
11.1
2.1
17.7
95.8
194.7
Total
290.5 sq. miles
The AOB is bounded generally by the northerly boundary of the San
Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor AOB from the San Diego County
Line to the intersection of the San Diego Freeway (State Route-405)
and the Newport-Costa Mesa Freeway (State Route 55); thence
northeasterly along the centerline of State Route 55 to Alton Avenue;
thence southeasterly along centerline of said Alton Avenue to Red Hill
Avenue; thence northeasterly along the centerline of said Red Hill
Avenue to Warner Avenue; thence northwesterly along the centerline of
said Warner Avenue to State Route 55; thence northeasterly along the
centerline of said State Route 55 to Edinger Avenue; thence westerly
along the centerline of said Edinger Avenue to Grand Avenue; thence
northerly along the centerline of said Grand Avenue to Seventeenth
Street; thence easterly along the centerline of said Seventeenth
Street to State Route 55; thence northerly along the centerline of
said State Route 55 to the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91); thence
northwesterly along the centerline of said State Route 91 to Tustin
Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of said Tustin Avenue to
Jefferson Street; thence northerly along said Jefferson Street to the
southerly city limits of Placentia; thence along the external boundary
of said city limits defined by annexation nos. 69-1, 76-1, 71-01,
-13-
~:
65-4, 63-3, 64-1, 65-7, 63-4, 63-2, 64-4, and 72-2 to its intersection
with Imperial Highway; thence southeasterly along the centerline of
said Imperial Highway to Valley View Avenue; thence northerly along
the centerline of said Valley View Avenue and its prolongation to the
southerly boundary of Chino Hills State Park; thence easterly along
the southerly boundary of Chino Hills State Park to its intersection
with the Orange/San Bernardino County line; thence southeasterly along
the Orange County line to the boundary of the San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor Area of Benefit.
ZONE A
Zone A begins at the Orange/San Bernardino County line where said
County Line intersects the centerline of the proposed extension of La
Palma Avenue as shown on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial
Highways dated August 8, 1984; thence westerly along the centerline of
said proposed La Palma Avenue to the proposed extension of Gypsum
Canyon Road as shown in said Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence
southerly along the centerline of said proposed Gypsum Canyon Road to
the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91); thence westerly along the
centerline of said State Route 91 to the northwesterly prolongation of
the easterly boundary of the Wallace Ranch as shown in Orange County
Record of Survey 2-5; thence southeasterly along said prolongation of
the easterly boundary of the Wallace Ranch and continuing
southeasterly along said easterly boundary to the northeasterly corner
of the Oak Hills Ranch as shown in said Record of Survey 2-5; thence
southeasterly along the easterly boundary of said Oak Hills Ranch as
shown in said Record of Survey 2-5 and continuing southwesterly along
the southerly boundary of said Oak Hills Ranch as shoran in said Record
of Survey 2-5 to the proposed southerly extension of Weir Canyon Road
as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence southerly
along said Weir Canyon Road to Irvine Boulevard; thence easterly along
the centerline of said Irvine Boulevard to Sand Canyon Avenue; thence
southerly along the centerline of said Sand Canyon Avenue to the
proposed realignment of Trabuco Road as shown on said Master Plan of
Arterial Highways; thence easterly along the centerline of said
proposed realignment of said Trabuco Road to the proposed northerly
extension of Muirlands Boulevard; thence along said Muirlands
Boulevard to the centerline of Alton Avenue; thence northerly along
the centerline of said Alton Avenue to Jeronimo Road; thence easterly
along the centerline of said Jeronimo Road to Bake Parkway; thence
northerly along the centerline of said Bake Parkway to Trabuco Road;
thence easterly along the centerline of said Trabuco Road to Alicia
Parkway; thence northerly along the centerline of said Alicia Parkway
to Portola Parkway; thence easterly along the centerline of said
Portola Parkway to the proposed Antonio Parkway as shown on said
Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence southerly along the
centerline of said Antonio Parkway to Ortega Highway; thence
southwesterly along the centerline of said Ortega Highway to the
proposed easterly extension of Avery Parkway as shown on said Master
Plan of Arterial Highways; thence westerly along rye centerline of
said proposed extension and Avery Parkway to the Santa Ana Freeway
-14-
where it intersects the common boundary between the Foothill/Eastern
and the San Joaquin Hills AOBs; thence southeasterly along said common
AOB boundary to the Orange/San Diego County line; thence northerly
along the Orange County line to where it intersects the centerline of
the proposed La Palma Avenue as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial
Highways.
ZONE B
Zone B is described by the total Foothill/Eastern area of benefit
excluding Zone A as described above.
VIII. FEES
In order to establish a corridor fee, it is necessary to determine who is
to pay the fee, the facility cost to be supported by fees and a basis or
unit of measure for the fees. As has been previously stated, it is
proposed that fees be paid by future development within the defined areas
of benefit in reasonable proportion to the benefit derived. The corridor
facilities will, of course, also benefit existing development within the
areas of benefit. The share of corridor cost attributable to benefits
derived by existing development is proposed to be funded from other
sources.
A. Determination of r^ee Program's Share of Corridor Cost
The first step in calculating the fee program share of the corridor
cost was to determine the percentage of corridor user trip ends that
originate or end within the area of benefit which are attributable to
new growth. Trip information derived from the SOCCS travel demand
model was used for this analysis. This percentage was established as
the developers share and multiplied by the total corridor cost to
determine the fee program share of costs as shown in Table VIII-1.
The fee program share of corridor cost was then separated into amounts
representing direct and indirect benefits to the benefit zones (A & 3
Zones) based upon peak hour and non-peak hour travel characteristics.
Approximately sixty-one percentl (61~) of corridor trips are expected
to occur during non-peak travel hours, thus representing a measure of
the direct benefit from the corridors. Approximately thirty-nine
percentl (39~) of corridor trips are expected to occur during peak
hours of travel, thus representing lessened congestion on the
remaining transportation system. This system relief is defined as
indirect benefit.
The direct and indirect factors were used to identify the relative
benefits between the A and B zones. The portion of fee program share
representing direct benefit was divided between the A and B zones
based upon the percentage of corridor user trips due to growth within
each zone. The portion of developers share representing indirect
benefit was distributed between the A and B zones based upon the
percentage of total trip ends on the transportation system within each
zone. The fees for the A and B Zones, therefore, include a measure of
both direct and indirect benefits received by each zone. Exhibits VII
and VIII show the method in which these calculations were made.
1Caltrans, LARTS 1976 Urban Rural Survey.
-15-
. _
4
The fee program share of Corridor Cost shown below represents an
estimate of the share attributable to new development. It is expected
that this share may change as future revisions are made to the fees.
TABLE VIII-1
FEE PROGRAM SHARE OF CORRIDOR COST
Total Corridor Developers Developers
Costs ($) Share ($) Share ($)
SJHTC
Zone A 28.6$ $ 97,856,775
Zone B 19.8$ $ 67,643,330
Total $341,660,000 48.4$ $165,500,104
F/ETC
Zone A 25.8$ $133,096,091
Zone B 22.78 $117,131,975
Total $516,147,000 48.5$ $250,228,066
B. Determination of Base Fee
The cost attributable to future development must be reduced to a fee
so that it may be apportioned in an equitable manner to specific types
of development. Allocation of the cost on the basis of trio end
generation by general land use category is proposed, where:
cost apportioned to future development in the AOB zone
cost/trip end trio end growth in the AOB zone
SJHTC F/ETC
$97,856,775 $133,096,091
Zone A 1,321,160 $74/TE 1,665,922 - $80/TE
Zone B $67,643,330 ~ $46/TE $117,131,975 = $43/TE
1,462,093 2,730,731
The data used in computing the average cost per trip end are
summarized in Exhibit IX and X. The trio end generation factors used
in the calculation were derived from the EMA Trip Generation Rates,
shown in Exhibit XI. The projected growth in dwelling units was taken
from the respective San Joaquin Hills and Foothill Transportation
Corridor studies. Projected growth in industrial/commercial floor
space was generated from hII~ITS I24 employment projections.
4Employment projects adopted by the Orange County Transportation Commission.
-16-
e 4
C. FEE DISTRIBUTION
Various land uses within the area of benefit have been grouped into
three major categories for the purposes of distributing fees to
individual developments. The three general categories used include
residential single-family dwelling units, residential multi-unit
dwellings, and non-residential land uses. The trip ends calculated
for the non-residential land use category were a summation of more
specific non-residential categories such as manufacturing, retail
regional, neighborhood/community commercial, and office uses. The
trio generation rates used to calculate the trip ends for each of
these more specific non-residential land uses were averages of rates
shown in Exhibit XI.
Prior to the summation of the trip ends from each of the more specific
non-residential land uses, an adjustment was made to the projected
trip ends for neighborhood/community commercial land uses. This
adjustment was an attempt to reflect the benefits to residential land
uses which accrue from construction of neighborhood/community
commercial development. Neighborhood/community commercial primarily
benefits local residents by providing an opportunity to shop close to
home. Many of the trip ends typically assigned to local retail uses
are accounted for by these short trips arriving from and returning to
residences. These residential-related trip ends actually provide
savings in travel costs due to the short nature of the trip. Addi-
tionally, neighborhood/community commercial development tends to
reduce energy consumption and traffic impacts.
Residential land uses receive sufficient benefit from construction of
neighborhood/community commercial development to distribute a portion
of the trip ends attributable to neighborhood/community commercial
development to residential land uses. For this reason, 50~ of the
trip ends attributable to neighborhood/community commercial
development were reassigned to single family residential and multi-
unit residential Land uses as a measure of this increased benefit.
The reassigned trip ends were split between single Family and multi-
unit residential land uses based upon their respective trip ends due
to growth. The adjusted trio ends are as follows:
TABLE VIII-2
ADJUSTED AOB TRIP ENDS
Land Use Category Zone A Zone B
Generated Adjusted Generated Adjusted
Trip Ends Trip Ends Trip Ends Trip Ends
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Single Family Residential Units 379,452 557,635
Multi-Unit Residential Units 193,956 285,053
Neighborhood/Community Commercial 448,800 179,520
FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
Single Family Residential Units 666,024
Multi-Unit Residential Units 160,377
Neighborhood/Community Commercial 479,662
897,960
216,238
191,865
139,368 254,936
240,723 440,312
525,262 210,105
643,812 1,143,880
248,906 442,221
1,155,638 462,255
-17-
5 ;;
~.
Once this adjustment was made, the fee program share of the total
corridor cost for each of the three generalized land use categories
was determined. The single-family residential and multi-unit
residential share of the corridor cost was calculated first by
multiplying the adjusted trip ends shown above by the appropriate cost
per trip end as developed in Exhibits IX and X. The non-residential
share of the corridor cost was calculated by using the difference
between the total fee program share and the total residential share of
the corridor cost. The fee program share of corridor cost by
generalized categories is:
TABLE VIII-3
FEE PROGRA.'d SHARE BY LAND USE CATEGORY
Single Family Multi-Unit
Residential Residential
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Zone A $41,264,990 $21,093,922
Zone B $11,727,056 $20,254,352
FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
Non-Residential
$35,497,862
$35,661,922
Total
Developer's Share
$ 97,856,774
$ 67,643,330
Zone A $71,836,800 $17,299,040 $43,960,251 $133,096,091
Zone B $49,186,840 $19,015,503 $48,929,632 $117,131,975
Once the fee program share of corridor cost by the three generalized
land use categories was determined, a fee for each of these categories
was determined by dividing each share by the appropriate number of
residential units or area of buildings shown in Exhibits IX and X.
Following is the final fee calculation for each of the three general
land use categories for both A and B fee zones.
TABLE VZII-4
AREA OF BENEFIT FEES
Land Use
Fee
~`n 1.-.nloFinn
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS 'TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Rounded
Fee Fee
Zone A
Single-family residential $41,264,990 - 31,621 units $1,305/unit $1,305/un`.
Multi-unit residential $21,093,922 - 27,708 units $761/unit $760/unit
Non-residential $35,497,862 - 20,021,185 sf $1.77/sf $1.75/sf
Zone B
Single-family residential $11,727,056 - 11,614 units $1,010/unit $1,010/unit
Multi-unit residential $20,254,352 - 34,389 units $589/unit $590/unit
Non-residential $35,661,922 - 27,700,559 sf $1.29/sf $1.30/sf
-18-
Fee
Land Use Calculation
Fee
Rounded
Fee
FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Zone A
Single-family residential $71,836,800 - 55,502 units
Multi-unit residential $17,299,040 - 22,911 units
Non-residential $43,960,251 - 24,231,767 sf
$1,294/unit
$755/unit
$1.81/sf
$1,295/unit
$755/unit
$1.80/sf
Zone 3
Single-family residential $49,136,840 - 53,651 units $917/unit
Kulti-unit residential $19,015,503 - 35,558 units $535/unit
Non-residential $48,929,632 - 46,616,669 fees $1.05/sf
D. APPLICATION OF FEES
$920/unit
$535/unit
$1.05/sf
When development fees are collected at the time of building permit
issuance, the number of residential units or area of non-residential
buildings will be known. The fees for each development will simply be
calculated by multiplying the number of residential units or gross
floor area of non-residential buildings times the appropriate land use
category and the fee zone. Gross floor area shall be defined as total
floor area including each floor of multiple story buildings within the
outer footprint of the building as described on the building permit.
Adjustments will not be made to traffic generation rates to reflect
anomalies due to project design or other conditions. All land uses
will be determined to oe within the most appropriate of the three
general land use categories.
In the event an existing non-residential building is proposed to be
expanded, the fee will be determined by the net increase of building
area. If a non-residential building is converted to another non-
residential use with no net increase in building area, no fees shall
be required. Parking structures shall also be exempt from payment of
fees since they do not generate a vehicular attraction in and of
themselves.
The following categories which receive exemptions from payment of
property taxes will also be generally exempt from paying
transportation corridor fees: 1) Church; 2) Religious; 3) College;
4) Welfare; 5) Wholly Exempt; 6) Other. The final determination of
whether a property is exempt will be based upon verification of a
property tax exemption for those specified categories on the latest
Assessor's roll as defined for Orange County by the State of
California.
Government-owned facilities or utilities shall be exempt from payment
of fees to the extent that the facilities will not be used for
generating revenue or commercial 'purposes. Examples of exempt public
uses are city halls, park buildings, and other public buildings.
Privately owned utilities will not be exempt from payment of corridor
fees.
-19-
Notwithstanding property tax exemptions, governmental-owned or
constructed facilities (including but not limited to counties, cities
and redevelopment agencies) which will generate revenue or be leased
for commercial purposes shall pay fees in accordance with the
established fee schedules. Examples of this include the revenue
generating portions of airports, train stations, stadiums, sports
arenas, convention centers, bus terminals, hotels, or concessions on
public lands. In the event construction of these facilities is an
expansion of an existing use, the fee shall be determined based upon
the net increase of building area.
All disputes over application of fees to specific projects or disputes
over exemptions of projects from fee requirements shall be presented
to the Joint Powers Agency described in Section XIII of this report
for resolution.
Examples of fee calculations:
1. The fee for a development consisting of 100 single-family detached
units, 300 condo units and 25,000 s.f. of office and Neighborhood
Shopping Center uses would be:
San Joaquin hills AOB (Zone A):
(100 D.U. x $1305/D.U.) _
(300 D.U. x $760/D.U.) _
(25,000 S.F. x $1.75/S.F.) _
Total fee for development if located in
Zone A of SJHTC AOB =
Foothill/Eastern AOB (Zone B):
(100 D.U. x 920/D.U.) _
(300 D.U. x $535/D.U.) _
(25,000 S.F. x $1.05/S.F.) _
Total fee for development if located in
Zone B of rr^oothill/Eastern AOB =
$ 130,500
$ 228,000
$ 43,750
$ 402,250
$ 92,000
$ 160,500
$ 26,250
$ 278,750
2. Total fee for reconstruction of a 10,000 sf. office building to a
15,000 s.f. Neighborhood Shopping Center would be calculated as
follows:
San Joaquin Hills AOB (Zone B):
(5,000 s.f. x $1.30/s.f.)
Total fee for development if located in
Zone A of SJHTC AOB =
_ $ 6,500
$ 6,500
-20-
~ ~
Foothill/Eastern AOB (Zone A):
(5,000 s.f. x $1.80/s.f.) _ $ 9,000
Total fee for development if located in
Zone A of Foothill/Eastern AOB = $ 9,000
IX. DEFERRAL OF FEES
It is proposed that fees may be deferred for residential multi-unit rental
projects or projects which include State or Federal requirements to provide
units affordable to families with incomes less than 80$ of the median income
(Section VIII housing). The deferral may oe for a period of five years from
the issuance of building permits or the period of the State/Federal funding
requirements beginning upon issuance of the first building permit. The fees
to be paid shall be those in effect at the time of payment and shall be
secured by an agreement and renewable letter of credit held by an escrow
company, or cash or time certificate of deposit in the amount of fees plus
15 percent in anticipation of inflationary increases.
X. CRITERIA FOR COLLECTION OF FEES
The enabling ordinance provides for collection of fees as a condition of
final map approval or issuance of building permits. Fees shall be collected
prior to issuance of all building permits for new residential structures and
commercial/industrial structures which establish new and enlarged floor
space. Fees will not be required for remodeling or reconstructing existing
structures to the same number of residential dwelling units or equal
commercial building area. Fees will not be required for construction of
retaining walls, patio covers, swimming pools or other non inhabitable
residential structures.
XI. DEVELOPMENT EXACTIONS & CREDITS
Development Projects containing portions of transportation corridors within
their boundaries shall be required by condition of approval of cities or
County to accomplish the following:
1. Dedicate right-of-way in accordance with schematic plans approved by the
Joint Powers Agency.
2. Grade corridor right-of-way in accordance with schematic plans approved
by the Joint Powers Agency and shown on the Tentative Tract idap and
rough grading plans.
3. Construct arterial overcrossings for internal arterials. Width of
overcrossing structure (i.e., number of travel lanes) is to oe
determined based upon vehicular and pedestrian traffic generated by the
proposed project.
4. Construct corridor travel lanes and interchange ramps required
immediately for access to proposed development or system continuity
-21-
(closure of short gaps). Number of lanes required is to be based upon
traffic generated by proposed project.
5. Participate, among other designated beneficiaries, in the San Joaquin
Hills or Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor fee program.
Subdivisions in which right-of-way, grading and improvements are required
for the transportation corridors will be eligible for credit toward
payment of the tdT&B fees to the extent that the costs are included in
development of the fee program. Whenever subdivisions are conditioned to
grade or improve portions of transportation corridors or dedicate right-
of-way in excess of Major Arterial Highway Standards, and these costs
exceed fees, the developer shall enter into an agreement prior to
recordation of final tract or parcel maps to identify the difference in
the dollar amount between the estimated costs of the grading,
improvements, and/or right-of-way, and the calculated fees. Such
agreements will establish the amount of reimbursement for which the
subdivision is entitled. A developer shall be entitled to reimbursement
for a period of fifteen (15) years after acceptance of improvements by the
appropriate legislative body. If the estimated costs of the grading,
improvements, and/or excess right of way are less than the calculated fee,
a developer may relinquish credits in lieu of paying fees until credits
are fully utilized with the remainder of the fee collected prior to
issuance of building permits.
In the event a development not requiring subdivision is conditioned to
construct or grade portions of the transportation corridors or dedicate
right-of-way, reimbursement agreements shall be executed prior to issuance
of any building permits within the project boundaries.
Developers will be allowed to apply credits earned on one project to
another project within the same area of benefit owned by the same
developer. In the event title to the land of a project changes, credits
can be transferred to another developer with the title to the land upon
written notification to the appropriate legislative body that is a party
to the reimbursement agreement. Credits will otherwise be non
transferable from one developer to another. Credits can be used for the
purpose of reducing fees prior to completion and acceptance of grading,
improvements or right-of-way dedication. However, no reimbursements shall
be made until all grading, improvements or dedication are completed and
accepted by the Board of Supervisors or City Council and funds are
available for reimbursement as determined by the appropriate legislative
body.
The guidelines for determination of fee credits are as follows:
1. General
Credit for right-of-way dedication, grading, and other improvements
will only be given to the extent that the cost of such right-of-way or
improvements are included in the calculation of fees in the Major
Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program.
-22-
F,:
2. Right-of-Way
Credit will be given for right-of-way dedication at the rate of
$50,000 per acre except for slope easements and a 120-foot-wide strip
along centerline of the transportation corridor which would normally
be required for arterial highway dedication.
3. Grading
Credit will be given for earthwork, road and slope drainage,
buttressing, stabilization, hydroseeding and erosion control at the
following combined rates:
Corridor Segment
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Jamboree to Station 511+50
Station 511+50 to Moulton Parkway
Moulton Parkway to Paseo de Colinas
FOOTHILL/EAS'T'ERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Foothill/Eastern Corridor
!'.. e.ii F D~}e
$149,784 per acre road easement
$124,132 per acre road easement
5124,915 per acre road easement
$137,060 per acre road easement
The term road easement as used above includes the entire area within
right-of-way (hinge point to hinge point) excluding slope and drainage
easements. The credit values furthermore include percentages or work
estimated for engineering, administration and contingencies for the
respective transportation corridors.
4. Drainage Structures
Credit will be given for drainage structures in accordance with
lengths of pipe and unit prices estimated as costs in the fee program
or for as-built structures which the Director, EMA or his designee
determine are reasonable equivalents of the structures in the fee
program cost estimate. Unit prices for as-built drainage structures
will be those used in the latest fee program cost estimate.
Engineering and administration credit of 15$ of the drainage structure
credit will be added. Contingency credit of 10~ of the drainage
structure credit will be added. Terrace drains, downdrains and
temporary drainage facilities or erosion control facilities are
included in the average unit cost of grading.
S. Other Improvements
Credit will be given for other improvements at the rate at which the
improvement was estimated in the fee program plus 15~ for. engineering
and administration plus 10$ for contingencies.
The credit rates specified above will be revised whenever the corridor
cost estimates are revised for the purpose of adjusting fees. Once
-23-
~,
fee credits are established by
further adjustments will be made
the corridor cost estimates or fee
XII. ANNUAL FEE ADJUSTMENT
an executed reimbursement agreement, no
to those credits because of revisions to
adjustments .
It is intended that the fee programs be submitted annually to the Board of
Supervisors and City Councils for fees to be automatically adjusted based
upon an approved construction cost index. Updated project cost estimates,
substantial changes in general plan land use elements, or other pertinent
information may also be cause for adjustment by the Board of Supervisors
and City Councils.
In the event an annual evaluation of the fee programs causes fees to be
reduced for any reasons, reimbursements will not be considered for fees
already paid.
XIII. CITY PARTICIPATION IN FEE PROGRAM
There are twelve different cities within the proposed areas of benefit for
the Foothill/F'astern and San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridors.
Joint Powers Agencies (JPA) consisting of City anc~ County members are
proposed for the purposes of planning and implementing the San Joaquin
Hills, Foothill and Eastern Transportation Corridors. It is proposed that
separate JPA's be created for the San Joaquin Hills Cocridor and the
combined Foothill/Eastern Corridors. Fees collected by Cities and the
County will be deposited with each JPA for the purposes of designing and
constructing the corridors. The JPA will be responsible for administering
fees collected under this fee program including any reimbursements called
for in reimbursement agreements identified in Section XI of this report.
KRM:1tDT20-4 -24-
7/19/85
LEGEND AREA OF BENEFIT SAN JOAOUIN HILLS
°,r -fA .,I." "k" "` 6e"f(I, INDEX MAP FOOTHILL/EASTERN
ARU Of BENFfiI 80U,FOAFf
F.,,Nernu" coRvu,-a WITH CITY BOUNDARIES TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
vee 2-F 60,114 R+ EXHIBIT I
—25—
1!
2 ~ EXHIBIT II
3~ RESOLUTION OF .THE BOARD OF Sli°ERVISORS OF
Q ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
5 April 21, 1982
6 On motion of Supervisor Wieder, duly seconded and carried, the
7 following Resolution was adopted:
g WHEREAS, development of lands is occurring which contributes
~ directly to the need for transportation corridors; and
10 WHEREAS, said development may obstruct future right-of-way for
11 the transportation corridors and
12 WHEREAS, development benefitting from implementation of the
13 transportation corridors should contribute toward the cost generally
14 in proportion to the need generated; and
J
15 WHEREAS, right-of-way for the transportation should be protected
'~W 16' as development occurs; and
'o~ 17 P:HEREAS, grading should be accomplished, whenever possible, in
V ~
lg conjunction with the grading and development of surrounding property;
19 and
20 WHEREAS, implementation of logical increments of the corridor
21 should occur in conjunction with the land develop-gent process whenever-
I
" 22 the transportation needs of that development require those tac~lit.==
23 for access; and
24 t4HEREAS, development policies for the implementation of the
25 transportation corridor will provide a basis for planning of future
26 development and serve as notice to the public as to the future
N
H
0 27 locations of the corridors;
28
RG:dh Resolution No. 82-598
Transportation Corridors
Development Policy -26-
{
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Z~ 15'
~o ~
~~
>~ 16j
z=
'o 0 17
u
i8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
° 26
N
T 27
C 28
t~O~~', i'H~ ~;, ~_~KE, BE 1T ;iF~OLVF,D that as a condition of up~.,iuval
of subdivisions containing within their boundaries portions of
transportation corridors shown on the Transportation Ele:~~ent of the
County General Plan the developer shall:
1. Dedicate right-of-way to County.
2. Grade corridor right-of-way in accordance with schematic
plans approved on the tentative map and rough grading plans approved
by the Director, EMA.
3. Construct arterial overcrossings for internal arterials.
Width of overcrossing structure (i.e., number of travel lanes) is to
be determined based upon vehicular and pedestrian traffic generated
by the proposed project.
4. Construct corridor travel lanes and interchange ramps
required immediately for access to proposed development or system
continuity (closure of short gaps). t\umber of lanes required is to be
based upon traffic generated by proposed project.
5. Participate, among other designated beneficiaries, in any
established corridor development fee program. Costs incurred pursuant.
to. Conditions 2 through 4 shall be creditable against fees. Costs
incurred pursuant to Condition 1 shall be creditable against fees to
the extent that the de~.~elo:r~nt `ee program includes said right-o~-wav
cost.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that EMA is hereby directed to amend
appropriate sections of the Subdivision and Zoning Codes to implE:nent
this policy.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that EMA is hereby directed to incorporate
in General Plan amendment elements, zoning actions, area plans and
site plans recommendations appropriate for implementing this policy.
-27-
- ~ .,
i
i ~ ~~ IT r~un:'~t:.x 1:ESULVED that EN,A is hereby directed to begin
2I analyzing potential areas of benefit as an adjunct to the Orange County/
3~ Orange County Transportation Commission Transportation Finance Study.
4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that affected cities be requested to adopt
S similar policies.
6 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that E.^~SA is hereby directed to proceed
%~ expeditiously with the establishment of a fee program.
st
9~
10 h
I
11 ~
I ? ,I
I
13
1~
~~
Z 1 5 ,.
o , o
_o~
W
`-'" IG
L ~ 2
O ~ i
a a 17
V ~ 1
18 AYES: C1IPERVISORS 13 °~IETT M. h'IEDER, RALPH B. CLARK, AIQD ROGER R.
S TAN TO'~
19
(NOES: SUPERVISORS NOI\~
20
~tiBSENT: SUPERVISORS 3~UCE 1LSTr?_`1DE AND THOMAS F. RILE1
21
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
22 i ) 55.
COUNTY OF ORPNGE )
23
2.i ~ I, JUNE AIEXANOER, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California
herehy certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly a~nii r-egular,jyy adop*_ed by
'the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st ,~day'~of A~ril•;;.
25 14 82 and passed by a unaninnus vote of said o~ard-lnzs present:...
b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand anG 3 eal this 21st flay cf
P.~ril 19 82
= 2 7 ~ - r,
28 ~ u~n,~: i ~.
. ~ JUN L XAN R
Clerk of'ir'h.e.,Board of Supervi~nrs
(~ of Orange 'County, Cd;l`i fo~nia
-28- ~ ~ :. ~ ~ -
c\
LEGEND AREA OF INFLUENCE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS
> 10.0
6.0-9.6 FOR CORRIDOR USERS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
e.0-7.0
Cry 4.0-5.9
O < 4.0 (BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF USER TRIPS) EXHIBIT III
-29-
LEGEND
> 10.0
8.0-9.9
6.0-7.9
4.0-6.9
< 4.0
AREA OF INFLUENCE
FOR CORRIDOR USERS
(BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF USER TRIPS)
FOOTHILL/ EASTERN
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
-30 -
EXHIBIT IV
LEGEND
ARE. NE BENEFIT BOUNU,R7 SAN JOAOUIN HILLS
,,,.E MIM TRANSPORTATION CO RIUNR AREA OF BENEFIT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
FEE ZONE BOUNDARY EXHIBIT V
I -31-
LEGEND FOOTHILL/EASTERN
AREA REREE 1 ROUM,ARY AREA OF BENEFIT
iR-R POMA110R CORRgOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
m m m o EEE tong 6o0ROARY EXHIBIT VI
-32-
EXHIBIT VII
Page 1 of 2
FEE PROGRAM SHARE OF TOTAL CORRIDOR COST
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Outside
Zone A Zone 3 AOB
Corridor User Trips
With One or Both Ends In Zone
Trips beginning and ending in zone
(Trips due to growth) 27,109 5,890 9,116
{Total trips) 29,047 9,811 22,195
In/Out Trips
(Trips due to growth) 60,145 25,834 49,798
(Total trips} 78,820 35,345 69,894
Out/In Trips
(Trips due to growth) 57,362 28,141 50,274
(Total trips) 73,274 38,582 72,203
Trip End Analysis
(Trip ends due to growth) 171,725 65,755 118,304
(Total trip ends) 210,188 93,549 186,487
(Percent corridor TE due to growth)1 81.70$ 70.29 63.44$
(Percent corridor users TE by Zone)2 42.88$ 19.08$ 38.04
(Percent corridor users TE due to growth)3 35.03$ 13.41$ 24.138
1Percent corridor TE due to growth = trip ends due to growth
Total Trip Ends
2Percent corrider users TE by zone Total trip ends per zone
Summation of total trip ends
3Percent corridor users TE due to growth = Percent TE due to growth x
percent corridor users TE by zone
DT20-19 -33-
EXHIBIT VII
Page 2 of 2
FEE PROGRAM SHARE OF 'TOTAL CORRIDOR COST
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
$ Corridor Users TE
Direct
Indirect
Fee Program
Zone Due to Growth
Benefit
Benefit
Share
A 35.03%
$ 73,006,934
$ 24,849,841
$ 97,856,775
B 13.41%
$ 27,948,130
$ 39,695,200
$ 67,643,330
Total 48.44%
$100,955,064
$ 64,545,041
$165,500,105
1. Total Corridor Cost = $341,660,000
2. Fee Program share = 48.448 x $341,660,000'= $165,500,105
i
3. Direct Benefit 618 x $165,500,105 = $100,955,064
4. Indirect Benefit 398 x $165,500,105 = $64,545,041
5. Zone A Share
Direct Benefit 35.038 x $341,660,000 x 618 =
Indirect Benefit 38.58* x'$64,545,041
Subtotal
6. Zone B Share
Direct Benefit 13.418 x $341,660,000 x 618 =
Indirect Benefit 61.58* "x $64,545,041 -
Subtotal
Total Fee Program Share
*8 Total system trip ends within A & 3 Zones
DT20--20
$ 73,006,934
$ 24,849,841
$ 97,856,775
$ 27,948,130
$ 39,695,200
$ 67,643,330
$165,500,105
Growth in
Trip ends Fee
1,321,160 $74/TE
1,462,093 $46/TE
2,783,253 $59/TE (Ave.)
. ~ , a ~s
EXHIBIT VIII
Page 1 of 2
FEE PROGRAM SHARE OF TOTAL CORRIDOR COST
FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Outside
Zone A Zone B AOB
Corridor User Trips With One or Both Ends In Zone
Trips beginning and ending in zone
(Trips due to growth) 27,922 9,322 20,555
(Total trips) 28,200 11,657 37,307
In/Out Trips
(Trips due to growth) 68,629 31,320 64,217
(Total trips) 80,763 46,004 88,512
Out/In Trips
(Trips due to growth) 75,449 33,648 55,069
(Total trips) 85,823 45,760 79,696
Trip End Analysis
(Trip ends Sue to growth) 199,922 83,612 160,396
(Total trip ends) 226,986 115,078 242,822
(Percent corridor TL due to growth)1 88.08$ 72.66 66.05
(Percent corridor users TE by Zone)2 38.81$ 19.68$ 41.52
(Percent corridor users TE due to growth)3 34.18$ 14.30$ 27.42
1Percent corridor TE due to growth = trio ends due to growth
Total Trip Ends
2Percent corrider users'TE by zone = Total trip ends per zone
Summation of total trio ends
3Percent corridor users TE due to growth =.Percent TE due to growth x
percent corridor u sers TE by zone
DT20-19 -35-
EXHIBIT VIII
Page 2 of 2
FEE PROGRAM SHARE OF TOTAL CORRIDOR COST
FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
% Corridor Users TE
Zone Due to Growth
Direct
Benefit
Indirect
Benefit
Fee Program
Share
Growth in
Trip ends
Fee
A 34.18%
$107,615,617
$ 25,480,474
$133,096,091
1,665,922
$80/TE
B 14.30%
$ 45,023,503
$ 72,108,472
$117,131,975
2,730,731
$43/TE
Total 48.48%
$152,639,120
$ 97,588,946
$250,228,066
4,396,653
$57/TE (Ave.)
1. Total Corridor Cost = $516,147,000
2. Fee Program share = 48.48% x $516,147,000 = $250,228,066
rn
3. Direct Benefit 61% x $250,228,066 = $152,639,120
4. Indirect Benefit 39% x $250,228,066 = $97,588,946
5. Zone A Share
Direct Benefit 34.18% x $516,147,000 x 61% = $107,615,617
Indirect Benefit 26.11$* x $97,588,946 = $ 25,480,474
Subtotal $133,096,091
6. Zone B Share
Direct Benefit 14.30% x $516,147,000 x 61% = $ 45,023,503
Indirect Benefit 73.89$* x $97,588,946 = $ 72,108,472
Subtotal $117,131,975
Total Fee Program Share $250,228,066
*% Total system trip ends within A & B Zones
DT2U--20
EXHIBIT IX
COST PER TRIP END ANALYSIS
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS
Proiected Growth In Dwellin4 Units
Zone A
Single Dwelling Units (SDU)
31,621
Multiple Dwelling Units (MDU)
27,708
Projected Growth In Industrial/Commercial
Floor Space
Manufacturing Floor Space (Sq. Ft.)
5,659,168
Retail -Regional Floor Space (Sq. Ft.)
1,496,000
Retail -Local* Floor Space (Sq. Ft.)
4,488,000
Office/Other Floor Space (Sq. Ft.)
8,378,017
Total Floor Space (Sq. Ft.)
20,021,185
Trip End Growth By Landuse Trip Rate Factors
SDU (12 T.E./D.U.)
379,452
MDU (7 T.E./D.U.)
193,956
Manufacturing (10 T.E./ksf)
56,592
Retail -Regional (50 T.E./ksf)
74,800
Retail -Local* (100 T.E./ksf)
448,800
Office/Other (20 T.E./ksf)
167,560
Total Trip Ends
1,321,160
New Development Share of Total Corridor Costs
$ 97,856,775
Average Cost per Trip End
Cost in 1984 Dollars
$ 74(1)
*Same as neighborhood/community commercial
(1) $97,856,775 1,321,160 TE _ $74.07/Trip End;
say $74/Trip End
(2) $67,643,330 1,462,093 TE _ $46.26/Trip End;
say $46/Trip End
DT20-- 21
Zone B
11,614
34,389
6,701,072
5,826,375
5,252,625
9,920,487
27,700,559
139,368
240,723
67,011
291,319
525,262
198,410
1,462,093
$ 67,643,330
$ 46(2)
k
t
w
Go
EXHIBIT X
COST PER TRIP END ANALYSIS
FOOTHILL/EASTERN
Projected Growth In Dwelling Units
Single Dwelling Units (SDU)
Multiple Dwelling Units (MDU)
Projected Growth In Industrial/Commercial
Floor Space
Manufacturing Floor Space (Sq. Ft.)
Retail -Regional Floor Space (Sq. Ft.)
Retail -Local* Floor Space (Sq. Ft.)
Office/Other Floor Space (Sq. Ft.)
Total Floor Space (Sq. Ft.)
Trip End Growth By Landuse Trip Rate Factors
SDU (12 T.E./D.U.)
MDU (7 T.E./D.U.)
Manufacturing (10 T.E./ksf)
Retail -Regional (50 T.E./ksf)
Retail -Local* (100 T.E./ksf)
Office/Other (20 T.E./ksf)
Total Trip Ends
Zone A
55,502
22,911
7,680,998
1,598,875
4,796,625
10,155,269
24,231,767
666,024
160,377
76,810
79,944
479,662
203,105
1,665,922
New Development Share of Total Corridor Costs $133,096,091
Average Cost per Trip End
Cost in 1982 Dollars $
*Same as neighborhood/community commercial
(1) $133,096,091 1,665,922 = $79.89/Trip End; say $80/Trip End
(2) $117,131,975 2,730,731 = $42.89/Trip End; say $43/Trip End
DT20-21
Zone B
53,651
35,558
13,439,465
3,852,125
11,556,375
17,768,704
46,616,669
643,812
248,906
134,395
192,606
1,155,638
355,374
2,730,731
$117,131,975
80(1) $ 43(2)
EXHIBIT XI
Page 1 of 2
DAILY VEHICLE TRIP GENERA'PION RATES
ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
August 1982
The following is a listing of vehicle trip generation rates used for planning
purposes by the Environmental Management Agency. These rates have been compiled
from a variety of sources, including County conducted studies, and are deemed
representative of land uses within Orange County. "TE/Ksf" is an abbreviation
for trip ends per thousand square feet of gross building floor area. "TE/Acre"
refers to trip ends per developed acre.
Land Use TE/Ksf TE/Acre TE/Other
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial/Industrial Park 13 176
Warehouse S 62
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family Detached 12 TE/Du
Single Family Detached-Estate 15 TE/Du
Multiple Unit (Apartments, Condos) 7 TE/Du
Mobile Home S TE/Du
Retirement Community 4 TE/Du
LODGING
Hotel 10 TE/Room
Motel 9 TE/Room
Resort Hotel (TRC Use) 300 18 TE/Room
RECREATIONAL
Neighborhood Park 6
Regional Park 5
State Park 1
Marina 4 TE/Berth
Beach 350 TE/1000' Shore
Golf Course 9
Campground 5 TE/Campsite
Tennis Club 43 TE/Court
Raquetball Club 26 31 TE/Court
INSTITUTION
Elementary School 47 1.0 TE/Student
Junior High School 60 0.9 TE/Student
High School 80 1.4 TE/Student
Junior College 80 1.5 TE/Student
Church - Weekday 19 60
Church - Sunday 44 135
Library 42 310
-39-
r ~,
EXHIBIT XI
Page 2 of 2
Land Use TE/Ksf TE/Acre TE/Other
MEDICAL
Hospital 18 200 14 TE/Bed
Nursing home 3 TE/Bed
OFFICE
General Office 15 240
Medical Office 75
Research Center 10 40
RETAIL
Discount Store 65
Hardware/Home Improvement 50 550
Shopping Center - Regional 50 500
( 30 Acres)
Shopping Center - Community 70 900
(10-30 Acres)
Shopping Center - Neighborhood 135 1250
( 10 Acres)
Restaurant - Quality (i.e., Velvet Turtle, 110
Hungry Tiger, etc.)
Restaurant - High Turnover (ie., Bob's, 350
Denny's, etc.)
Restaurant - Fast Food (i.e., MacDonald's, 900
Carl's Jr., etc.)
Automobile Sales 400
Service Station 750 TE/Station
Supermarket 125
Convenience Market (i.e., 7-11, 550
Stop & Go, etc.)
SERVICES
Bank - Walk In 180
Bank - Drive In 195
Savings and Loan - Walk In 65
Savings and Loan - Drive In 75
KRS:desDT20-22 -40-
6/11/85