Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout29 - PH-1 - Attachment 5 - 8/4/2015ATTACHMENT 5 PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY CITY OF COSTA MESA AUGUST 4, 2015 Prepared by: DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5000 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 6000 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (800) 969-4382 Novport 13cach Saiz FrMICIS O TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................I I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 1 II. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ............................................... 2 III. DEMOGRAPHICS..................................................................................................................................8 IV. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES............................................................................................... 11 V. METHODOLGY UTILIZED TO CALCULATE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ................................... 17 APPENDIX A MAP OF VACANT LAND SALES APPENDIX B CITY OF ENCINITAS- ENCINITAS COMMUNITY PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA APPENDIX C JARP DISTRICT- HORSESHOE LAKE PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA APPENDIX D JARP DISTRICT- VETERAN'S MEMORIAL PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA APPENDIX E CITY OF LAKE FOREST - SPORTS PARK APPENDIX F CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL - CROWN VALLEY PARK APPENDIX G CITY OF PASADENA - DESIDERIO PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA APPENDIX H CITY OF REDONDO BEACH - HEART PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA APPENDIX I CITY OF SAN MARCOS - BRADLEY PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA APPENDIX J CITY OF TUSTIN - TUSTIN LEGACY PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to adequately plan for new development and identify the public park and recreation facilities and costs associated with mitigating the direct and cumulative impacts of new development, David Taussig & Associates, Inc. ("DTA") was retained by the City of Costa Mesa (the "City") to prepare an AB 1600 Fee Justification Study (the "Park Fee Study"). The Park Fee Study is intended to comply with Section 66000 et. seq. of the Government Code (the "Act" or "AB 1600"), which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, by identifying the additional public park and recreation facilities required by new development ("Future Park Facilities") and determining the level of fees that may be imposed to pay the costs of the Future Park Facilities. Fee amounts have been determined that will finance park and recreation facilities at the standard established in the City's General Plan, or 4.26 acres of improved park and recreation facilities for every 1,000 new residents. The Future Park Facilities and estimated land acquisition and associated construction costs per residential dwelling unit are identified in Section IV of the Park Fee Study. A description of the methodology used to calculate the fees is included in Section V. All new residential development may be required to pay its "fair share" of the cost of the new infrastructure through the development fee program. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT Section I of this report provides an introduction to the Park Fee Study including background information on development fee financing. Section II provides an overview of the legal requirements for implementing and imposing the fee amounts identified in the Park Fee Study. Section III includes a discussion of household sizes, or persons per household, for residential land uses within the City. Section IV includes a description of the Future Park Facilities needed to serve new residential development that are eligible for funding by the impact fees, including estimated costs, offsetting revenues, net costs to the City and costs attributable to new residential development. Section V discusses the findings required under the Mitigation Fee Act and requirements necessary to be satisfied when establishing, increasing or imposing a fee as a condition of new residential development, and satisfies the nexus requirements for the Future Park Facilities. In addition, Section V contains the description of the methodology used to determine the fees. Appendix A includes a map showing the location of the properties comprising the vacant land sale data employed in the Park Fee Study. Appendices B — J identify the park and recreation facilities cost data employed in the Park Fee Study. IMPACT FEE SUMMARY The recommended Future Park Facilities fee amounts are summarized in Table ES -1 below, Table ES -1 includes two fee level alternatives developed by City staff that reflect historical and projected rates of parkland acquisition. Fees within this Park Fee Study reflect a range of fee levels that may be imposed on new residential development depending upon the residential dwelling unit type. City of Costa Mesa Page i Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 TABLE ES -1 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY RE5105NTIAL DEVELOPMENT I APARTMENT I ¢50 UNIT 4�. SINGLE FAMILY i MULTI -FAMILY PROJECTS PRO (S PER uNir) ($ PER UNIT) IS PER UNIT) (y PER Park and Recreation Facilities Alternative 1 (Historical Parkland Acquisition') $11,285.19 $8,777.37 $10,597.56 $10,597.56 Alternative 2 (Projected Parkland Acquisition') $18,006.38 $14,004.96 $14,004.96 $5,056.613 ' Based on the City's rate of parkland acquisition from 2006 through 2014 which results in park and recreation facilities costs of $949,500 per acre. z Based on the City's projected rate of parkland acquisition which results in park and recreation facilities costs of $1,515,000 per acre. 3 Fee for apartment projects with 50 or dwelling units adjusted (i) in consideration of typical on-site amenities, (ii) persons per household case study for an existing greater than 50 dwelling unit apartment project, and (iii) citywide distribution of apartment dwelling unit type (i.e., studio, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, and 3 or more bedroom dwelling units) for greater than 50 dwelling unit apartment projects. City of Costa Mesa Page ii Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 --415— I. INTRODUCTION In order to adequately plan for new residential development and identify the public park and recreation facilities and costs associated with mitigating the direct and cumulative impacts of new residential development, David Taussig & Associates, Inc. ("DTA") was retained by the City to prepare a new AB 1600 Fee Justification Study (the "Park Fee Study"). The need for this Park Fee Study is driven by anticipated residential development, including development on which the City's existing Quimby Act fee cannot generally be imposed, such as the redevelopment of existing property into multi -family uses without the subdivision of land. The Park Fee Study is intended to comply with Section 66000 et. Seq. of the Government Code, which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, by identifying additional public park and recreation facilities required by new residential development ("Future Park Facilities") and determining the level of fees that may be imposed to pay the costs of the Future Park Facilities. Fee amounts have been determined that will finance park and recreation facilities at the standard established in the City's General Plan, or 4.26 acres of improved park and recreation facilities for every 1,000 new residents. The Future Park Facilities and estimated land acquisition and associated construction costs per residential dwelling unit are identified in Section IV of the Park Fee Study. All new residential development may be required to pay its "fair share" of the cost of the Future Park Facilities through the development fee program. Based upon projections from the Center for Demographics Research, California State University, Fullerton (the "Center"), new residential development is expected to result in approximately 5,213 new residents within the City by 2040, representing an approximate 4.7% increase compared to the Center's 2012 population estimate for the City. The City will need to expand its public park and recreation facilities to accommodate the impacts of this growth and the levy of impact fees in conformance with AB 1600 legislation will help finance new park and recreation facilities which are needed to mitigate these impacts. The following steps were incorporated in the Park Fee Study: 1. Demographic Assumptions: Identify future housing growth that will generate the increased demand for park and recreation facilities. 2. Facility Needs and Costs: Identify the amount and cost of park and recreation facilities required to meet the demands of new residential development. Facilities costs are discussed in Section IV. 3. Cost Allocation: Allocate these costs per new residential dwelling unit. 4. Fee Schedule: Calculate the fee per new residential dwelling unit. City of Costa Mesa Page 1 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study Auaust 4, 2015 �4t II. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES 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-site. 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. The levy of impact fees is one authorized method of financing the public facilities necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development. 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 typically occurring prior to the beginning of construction of a dwelling unit. Fees are often levied at final map recordation, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or more commonly, at building permit issuance. However, Assembly Bill ("AB") 2604 (Torrico) which was signed into law in August 2008, encourages public agencies to defer the collection of fees until close of escrow to an end user in an attempt to assist California's then troubled building industry. The authority of local governments to impose impact fees on development is derived from their police power to protect the health and welfare of citizens under the California Constitution (Article 11, Section 7). Furthermore, the California Mitigation Fee Act provides a prescriptive guide to establishing and administering impact fees based on "constitutional and decisional law." Development impact fees ("DIFs") were enacted under Assembly Bill 1600 by the California Legislature in 1987 and codified under California Government Code §66000 et. seq., also referred to as the Mitigation Fee Act (the "Act" or "AB 1600"). AB 1600 defines local governments to include cities, counties, school districts, special districts, authorities, agencies, and other municipal corporations. Fees governed by the Act include development fees of general applicability, and fees negotiated for individual projects. The Act does not apply to user -fees for processing development applications or permits, fees governed by other statutes (e.g., the Quimby Act), developer agreements, or penalties, or fees specifically City of Costa Mesa Page 2 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 excluded by the Act (e.g., fees collected pursuant to agreements with redevelopment agencies or various reimbursement agreements). Public facilities that can be funded with impact fees are defined by the Act as "public improvements, public services, and community amenities." Government Code, §65913,8 precludes the use of DIFs to fund maintenance or services, with limited exceptions for very small improvements and certain temporary measures needed by certain special districts. In combination, these provisions effectively restrict the use of most impact fees to public capital improvements. For general information, please see: ❖ "Exactions and Impact Fees in California: A Comprehensive Guide to Policy, Practice, and the Law," edited by William Abbott, et al., Solano Press Books, 2012 Third Edition. The City has identified the need to levy development impact fees to pay for public park and recreation facilities. The development impact fees presented in this study will finance public park and recreation facilities for new development at the level established by the City in its General Plan. Upon the adoption of the Park Fee Study and required legal documents by the City Council, all new residential development will be required to pay its "fair share" of the cost of public park and recreation facilities through these development impact fees. In 2006, Government Code Section 66001 was amended to clarify that a development impact fee cannot include costs attributable to existing deficiencies, but can fund costs used to maintain the existing level of service or meet an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan. This Park 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. Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code requires that all public agencies satisfy the following requirements when establishing, increasing or imposing a fee as a condition of new development: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(1)) 2. Identify the use to which the fee will be put. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(2)) 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(3)) 4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(4)) City of Costa Mesa Page 3 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 5. Discuss how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. Identifying these items will enable a development impact fee to meet the nexus and rough proportionality requirements established by previous court cases. This section presents each of these items as they relate to the imposition within the City of the proposed development impact fees for public park and recreation facilities. 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 development impact fees is to determine what share of the benefit or cost of the new facilities can be equitably assigned to existing development, even if the facilities have not yet been constructed. By removing this factor, the true impact of new development can be assessed and equitable development impact fees assigned. A. Purpose of the Fee (Government Code Section 66001(a)(1)) Based upon projections from the Center for Demographics Research, California State University, Fullerton (the "Center"), new residential development is expected to result in approximately 5,213 new residents within the City by 2040. These future residents will create an additional demand for public park and recreation facilities that existing public park and recreation facilities cannot accommodate. In order to accommodate new residential development in an orderly manner, without adversely impacting the current quality of life in the City, additional public park and recreation facilities will need to be constructed. It is the projected direct and cumulative effect of future residential development that has required the preparation of this Park Fee Study. Each new residential dwelling unit will contribute to the need for new public park and recreation facilities, and as such, the proposed impact fee will be charged to all future residential development, irrespective of location, in the City. While a significant portion of the City's future residential development can be characterized as "in fill" development projects, these projects contribute to impacts on public park and recreation facilities because they are an interactive component of a much greater universe of development located throughout the City. First, the residents associated with any new residential development in the City have access to and in fact may regularly utilize and benefit from the City's park and recreation facilities. Second, these residents may have chosen to purchase or rent the specific homes in which they reside partially as a result of the parks and other recreational opportunities located nearby. Third, the availability of park and recreation facilities throughout the City has a growth -inducing impact, in that it enhances the City's reputation as a great place to live, thereby attracting new development that may have otherwise gone elsewhere. As a result, all residential development projects in the City contribute to the cumulative need for new park and recreation facilities throughout the City of Costa Mesa Page 4 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 City. The development impact fees, when collected, will be placed into a dedicated fund that will be used solely for the design, acquisition, installation, and construction of public park and recreation facilities and other appropriate costs to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new residential development in the City. The discussion in this subsection of the Park Fee Study sets forth the purpose of the development impact fee as required by Section 66001(a)(1) of the California Government Code. B. THE USE TO WHICH THE FEE IS TO BE PUT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(2)) The development impact fee will be used specifically for the design, acquisition, installation, and construction of the public park and recreation facilities discussed in Section IV of the Park Fee Study and related costs necessary to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new residential development in the City. By directly funding these costs, the development impact fees will both enhance the quality of life for future City residents and protect their health, safety, and welfare. The discussion presented in this subsection of the Park Fee Study identifies the use to which the development impact fee is to be put as required by Section 66001(a)(2) of the California Government Code. C. DETERMINE THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEES USE AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP) (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(3)) As discussed in Section A above, it is the projected direct and cumulative effect of future residential development that has prompted the preparation of this Park Fee Study. Each residential dwelling unit will contribute to the need for new public park and recreation facilities. Even future "in fill" development projects, which may be adjacent to existing park and recreation facilities, contribute to impacts on such facilities because they are an interactive component of a much greater universe of development located throughout the City. Consequently, all residential new development within the City, irrespective of location, contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development on public park and recreation facilities and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth, As set forth in Section V of the Park Fee Study, the fees will be expended for the design, acquisition, installation, and construction of new public park and recreation facilities identified in Section IV, as that is the purpose for which the DIF is collected. As previously stated, all new residential development creates either a direct impact on park and recreation facilities or contributes to the cumulative impact on park and recreation facilities. City of Costa Mesa Page 5 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 • For the foregoing reasons, there is a reasonable relationship between the design, acquisition, construction, and installation of the public park and recreation facilities and new residential development as required under Section 66001(a)(3) of the Mitigation Fee Act. D. 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 set forth in part A above, all new residential development contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts on public park and recreation facilities and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth. Also as previously stated, all new residential development within the City, irrespective of location, contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development on public park and recreation facilities and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth. Moreover, the public park and recreation facilities identified in Section IV are specifically a function of the number of projected future residents within the City and do not reflect any unmet needs of existing development. For the reasons presented herein and in Section V, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public park and recreation facilities and all new residential development within the City as required under Section 66001(a)(4) of the Mitigation Fee Act. E. 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) As set forth above, all new residential development in the City impacts public park and recreation facilities. Moreover, each individual residential development project and its related increase in population will adversely impact existing park and recreation facilities. Thus, imposition of the development impact fee to finance new public park and recreation facilities is an efficient, practical, and equitable method of permitting development to proceed in a responsible manner. New development impacts the need for public park and recreation facilities directly and cumulatively. Even new development located adjacent to existing facilities will have access to and benefit from new public park and recreation facilities. Again, the design, acquisition, construction, and installation of the public parks and recreation facilities in Section IV are specifically a function of projected new residents within the City and do not reflect any unmet needs of existing development. As set forth in part F below, the proposed development impact fee amounts are roughly proportional to the impacts resulting from new residential development. Thus there is a City of Costa Mesa Page 6 Parka?d Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study Aupust 4, 2015 -41 reasonable relationship between the amount of the development impact fee and the cost of the public park and recreation facilities. F. AB 1600 NEXus TEST AND APPORTIONMENT OF FACILITIES COSTS Section 66000 of the Government Code requires that a reasonable relationship exist between the need for public facilities and the type of development on which a development impact fee is imposed. The need for public park and recreation facilities is related to the level of service established in the City's General Plan, which varies in proportion to the persons per household ("PPH") generated by a particular residential land use. DTA established fees for the following three residential land use categories to acknowledge the difference in PPH impacts from various residential land uses. The City will develop a table of general plan land use designations that link to the land use classifications used in this study for clarification and consistency with City zoning. This table will be made a part of the ordinance or resolution that will be adopted for the purpose of implementing this development impact fee program. TABLE II -1 Land Use Classijrcuinrt fnr Park Fee Study Single Family Residential ("SFR") Multi -family Owner ("Multi -family") Apartment The costs associated with the public park and recreation facilities needed to serve new residential development are identified in Section IV. As mentioned above, the public park and recreation facilities costs per person drive the development impact fee amount for each land use classification and establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for public park and recreation facilities and the residential land use type characterizing the development on which a development impact fee is being imposed. Section V presents the nexus test and the analysis undertaken to apportion public park and recreation facilities costs to each residential land use classification. City of Costa Mesa Page 7 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 5® I— III. DEMOGRAPHICS In order to determine the public park and recreation facilities needed to serve new development as well as establish fee amounts to fund such facilities, the City commissioned a demographics analysis from Stanley R. Hoffman Associates ("SRH"). SRH utilized Public Use Microdata Areas ("PUMA") data to estimate PPH for each residential land use type. Population and occupied households derived from the PUMA data for the Costa Mesa area are shown in Tables III -1 and III -2 below. TABLE III -1 POPULATION ANIS HOUSEHOLD --- OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS ENT{AL L Mobile Home or Trailer One -Family House Detached PERSi►' U5EHOLDS 1,013 439 35,500 12,476 One -Family House Attached 5,015 2,502 2 Apartments 347 119 3-4 Apartments 992 385 5-9 Apartments 513 293 10-19 Apartments 333 166 20-49 Apartments 111 94 50 or More Apartments Boats Total 173 20 81 20 44,017 16,575 City of Costa Mesa Page 8 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 20I5 5s TABLE III -2 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD — RENTER OCCUPIED UNITS RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UN. Mobile Home or Trailer 159 HOUSEHOLDS 121 One -Family House Detached 10,867 3,373 One -Family House Attached 4,109 1,510 2 Apartments 4,228 1,317 3-4 Apartments 15,208 4,572 5-9 Apartments 7,668 2,624 10-19 Apartments 7,360 3,047 20-49 Apartments 7,435 3,678 50 or More Apartments 6,226 3,111 Boats 26 26 Total 63,286 23,379 All One -Family House Detached and One -Family House Attached units are classified as SFR units. Owner occupied Apartments are classified as Multi -family units. Renter occupied Apartments are classified as Apartment units. Grouping the data accordingly results in the PPH shown in Table III -3 below. TABLE III -3 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT TYP SFR u. 55,491 19,861 2.79 Multi -family Apartment i Total/Average 2,469 48,125 106,085 1,138 18,349 39,348 2.17 2.62 2.70 In addition, City staff conducted a case study analysis of the PPH for large apartment projects using an existing apartment project with over one hundred (100) dwelling units. City staff City of Costa Mesa Page 9 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 ._.152- calculated PPH separately for studio, one bedroom, two bedroom, and three or more bedrooms. The results of this case study are shown in Table III -4 below. TABLE III -4 PPH AND EDUS LARGE APARTMENT PROJECT CASE STUDY REsiDENTIAI. DWELLING KNIT TYPE I7ISTRI Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 9.5% 45.5% 1.2000 1.5000 40.6% 2.1000 3+ Bedroom Total/Weighted Average 4.4% 2.8000 100.0% 1.7723 'Distribution based on all existing apartment projects within the City with 50 or more dwelling units. City of Costa Mesa Page 10 Park and Recreation Facilities Oevelonment Impact Fee Justification Study August 4.2015 -5-3- IV. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES Government Code Section 66000, which codifies California's Mitigation Fee Act, requires that if impact fees are going to be used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified prior to the adoption of the fee. There are three basic methodologies that can be employed to determine the facilities to be financed. The first methodology, which is called a "Plan -Based Approach," is based on the existence of a "Facilities Plan" that lists the specific facilities necessary to serve future growth. The Facilities Plan utilized under this approach is usually prepared by a municipality's staff and/or consultants, often with community input, and is then adopted by the municipality's legislative body either prior to or at the same time the fee program is approved. The Facilities Plan also identifies the costs of the facilities listed, and these costs are in turn allocated based on the level of benefit to be received by projected future land uses anticipated to be developed within the time period being analyzed. In the case of the City, the only existing Park and Recreation Facilities Plan was prepared and adopted by the City Council in 2002 and is out of date. While the City is now working with the community to prepare a new Park and Recreation Facilities Plan, the completion of this Facilities Plan and its adoption by City Council is not imminent. As a result, a Plan -Based Approach is infeasible at this time. A second methodology to identify facilities needs is the "Capacity -Based Approach," and is based on the magnitude of existing capacity or expanded capacity needed for a type of public facility in order to handle projected growth during the selected time period. This approach works best for facilities such as an existing water storage facility or sewer treatment plant where existing costs or facilities expansion costs necessary to serve future development are already known (and in the case of existing capacity, may have already been expended). This kind of fee is not necessarily dependent on a particular land use plan for future development, but is instead based on the cost per unit of constructing the remaining existing capacity in a facility, or the cost to expand such capacity, which can then be applied to any type of future development. However, the City has already determined that, based on a standard of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents, there is no existing surplus of park and recreation facilities that is available to serve new development. Furthermore, the City has not determined what specific improvements could be added to existing park facilities to adapt them to use by a greater population of residents, nor the cost of such improvements, so insufficient information was available to employ the "Capacity -Based Approach" in this Park Fee Study. A third approach is to utilize a facilities "standard" established for future development, against which facilities costs are determined based on units of demand from this development. This approach, which is often applied to park and recreation facilities when there is no existing Facilities Plan, establishes a generic unit cost for capacity, which is then applied to each land use type per unit of demand. This standard is not based on the cost of a specific existing or future facility, but rather on the cost of providing a certain standard of service, such as the 4.26 acres of park and recreation facilities per 1,000 residents established by the General Plan. This method has several advantages, including not requiring a municipality to know (i) the cost of a specific facility, (ii) how much capacity or service is provided currently (as the new standard does not City of Costa Mesa Page 11 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4. 2015 �5�1- necessarily need to reflect the existing standard), or (iii) the size, site, or characteristics of specific future facilities. In the case of the City, in which specific facility sites or sizes, or types of park and recreation improvements or facilities have not yet been determined, the City does intend to acquire (or require future development to provide on-site) 4.26 acres per 1,000 new residents, whether those residents are generated by Single Family, Multi -family, or Apartment dwelling units. As a result, a "Standards -Based Approach" was determined by the City and DTA to be the most appropriate methodology for purposes of calculating impact fees for the Park Fee Study. Since no specific park and recreation sites and/or facilities have been determined to -date, specific costs are not yet known. Consequently, it was necessary to estimate what anticipated land acquisition costs could be expected, as well as which types of improvements should be included in developing these future parks and the costs related to constructing these improvements. Further information on these improvement costs and types is provided below in Section IV.A, below. A. LAND ACQUISITION COSTS As the City is already substantially built out, it is anticipated that sites for new park and recreation facilities will be limited to the acquisition of small parcels of vacant or underutilized land, such as underutilized public facilities, surplus school property, or industrial property or low-density residential property on which existing uses could be cost-effectively demolished. Without knowing which specific sites will be acquired by the City, DTA conducted a survey of vacant sites within the City that have been purchased over the past twelve years, and calculated a weighted average price per acre. Table IV -1, below, reflects land use and acreage data, dates of sale, and sale prices per acre for the eight (8) vacant land parcels reported by LoopNet.com as having been sold within the City since 2003. Based on these data, the City will be utilizing an estimated land price of $2,500,000 per acre as the cost of new parkland, with an annual price escalator applied on July 11t of each year, starting July 1, 2016, based on the change to the Los Angeles -Rive rsid e - Orange County Consumer Price Index in the previous calendar year. City of Costa Mesa Page 12 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 -55-- TABLE IV -1 B. PARK IMPROVEMENT TYPES AND COSTS As noted previously, the specific types of improvements/facilities to be constructed within future City parks have not yet been specifically identified, but are expected to be included in the City Park Facilities Plan that is currently being prepared by City staff, with the assistance of the community. In order to maintain as much flexibility as possible, City and DTA staff have prepared a generic list of facilities/improvements that could potentially be included within these future parks. The types of park facilities listed in Table IV -2 are expected to be financed, in whole or in part, through the levy of a development impact fee on all future residential development in the City. City of Costa Mesa Page 13 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4 2015 —5G ---.A VACANT LAND SALES CITY OF COSTA MESA DATE SOLD 4/30/2009 PARCEL L.00ATiONI 2 6 SITE ACREAGE 0.76 1.61 _—YPfOFF USE --L Industrial Multifamily SALE PRICE _P R ALHE $1,650,000 9/22/2008 $3,226,667 12/31/2006 1 0.72 Commercial/Other $2,969,655 5/5/2006 5 0.42 Multifamily $2,744,384 6/8/2005 7 0.25 Multifamily $3,682,801 2/23/2004 8 0.24 Commercial/Other $2,534,389 7/14/2003 3 0.61 Retail $2,131,147 5/21/2003 4 0.76 Retail $1,578,947 Weighted Average Sales Price per Acre $2,5fi4,OD0 ' See Appendix A Source: LoopNet.com B. PARK IMPROVEMENT TYPES AND COSTS As noted previously, the specific types of improvements/facilities to be constructed within future City parks have not yet been specifically identified, but are expected to be included in the City Park Facilities Plan that is currently being prepared by City staff, with the assistance of the community. In order to maintain as much flexibility as possible, City and DTA staff have prepared a generic list of facilities/improvements that could potentially be included within these future parks. The types of park facilities listed in Table IV -2 are expected to be financed, in whole or in part, through the levy of a development impact fee on all future residential development in the City. City of Costa Mesa Page 13 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4 2015 —5G ---.A TABLE IV -2 TYPES QF PARK IMPA- I Amphitheatre Picnic Tables Ball Fields (Baseball, Football, Soccer, Multi -Use) Playground (Tot Lot, Water Play) Bike Paths Recreation Center Bike Rack Restrooms Community Events Center Retaining Walls and Fencing Concession Building Security Lighting Courts (Basketball, Horseshoe, Tennis, Volleyball) Shade Structures Demolition Site Furniture Drinking Fountains Site Preparation Grading / Earthwork Skate park Swimming Pool Synthetic Turf Fields Irrigation and Landscaping Park Benches Parking Lot/Paving Trash Receptacles Utilities (Drainage, Sewer, Water, Gas, Electrical) Pedestrian Path/Trails Permanent Sports Lighting In an effort to determine the appropriate cost of the types of public park and recreation facilities listed in Table IV -2, DTA collected park and recreation facilities cost information for recently constructed public parks in Southern California. These cost data are shown in Table IV -3 and were obtained from a park and recreation facilities cost database derived from other DTA park fee studies, as well as on-line and municipality -provided park cost information. While the source data for certain parks included design and other soft costs, the majority of the source data did not. Therefore, with the exception of Desiderio Park, for which it was not feasible to exclude design costs, the park and recreation facilities cost figures in Table IV -3 do not include design costs, meaning that they are generally conservative. Notably, the Cities of Encinitas, Lake Forest, and Laguna Niguel park construction costs are based on actual bids, while the construction costs for the other parks listed are estimates provided by the municipalities in which the parks were to be developed. To determine the weighted average public park and recreation facilities construction cost per acre, the high and low construction cost estimates (Desiderio Park and Veteran's Memorial Park) were excluded from the computations because they appeared to be outliers. The resulting weighted average public park and recreation facilities construction cost is $391,074 per acre and the City will be utilizing an estimated construction cost of $390,000 per acre. As is the case for land acquisition costs, estimated park improvement/facilities costs will be adjusted on July 11t of City of Costa Mesa Page 14 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 ,,5 I each year, starting July 1, 2016, based on the change to the Los Angeles -Riverside -Orange County Consumer Price Index in the previous calendar year. Detailed park and recreation facilities construction costs are included in Appendices B - J. TABLE IV -3 C. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES COSTS 1. MAXIMUM PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES COSTS Adding the $2,500,000 per acre in land acquisition costs to the $390,000 per acre in improvements costs yields a full cost for park and recreation facilities of $2,890,000 per acre. Note, the City has no revenues (e.g., grants, general obligation bond proceeds, etc.) with which it can offset these facilities costs. 2. ALTERNATIVE 1 The City's ability to acquire parkland has been hampered for two reasons. One, the City has to -date imposed park fees pursuant to the Quimby Act which is not applicable to apartment projects. As a result, only forty percent (40.00%) of the residential dwelling units developed within the City since 2000 have paid park fees. In short, park fee revenues have been insufficient to acquire parkland in amounts consistent with the City's City of Costa Mesa Page 15 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 SS� PARI[ AND REC_RERTION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION COSTS �i T UBLIC AG ItICY PARK( , YEAR ACRS j ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST F51IMAT11, CONSTRUCTION COST PER ACRE Encinitas Encinitas Community Park 2012 44.0 $13,927,642 1 $316,537 Jurupa Area Rec and Parks District Horseshoe Lake Park 2006 13.0 $2,375,000 $182,692 Jurupa Area Rec and Parks District Veteran's Memorial Park 2006 9.98 $1,487,750 $149,073 Lake Forest Sports Park 2013 86.20 $35,888,810 $416,344 Laguna Niguel Pasadena Crown Valley Park 2014 2014 18.00 3.80 $4,599,531 $2,410,000 3 $255,529 $634,211 Desiderio Park Redondo Beach Heart Park 2003 76.5 $32,473,900 z $424,495 San Marcos Bradley Park 2012 34.0 $12,492,484 $367,426 Tustin Tustin Legacy 2014 1 31.50 $16,816,265 $533,850 Weighted Average (Excluding High and Low Data Points) $391,074 1 Excludes $5,250,000 for EIR, design, and development. Z Excludes $91,864,600 for remediation/site preparation. 3 Includes design costs. C. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES COSTS 1. MAXIMUM PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES COSTS Adding the $2,500,000 per acre in land acquisition costs to the $390,000 per acre in improvements costs yields a full cost for park and recreation facilities of $2,890,000 per acre. Note, the City has no revenues (e.g., grants, general obligation bond proceeds, etc.) with which it can offset these facilities costs. 2. ALTERNATIVE 1 The City's ability to acquire parkland has been hampered for two reasons. One, the City has to -date imposed park fees pursuant to the Quimby Act which is not applicable to apartment projects. As a result, only forty percent (40.00%) of the residential dwelling units developed within the City since 2000 have paid park fees. In short, park fee revenues have been insufficient to acquire parkland in amounts consistent with the City's City of Costa Mesa Page 15 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 SS� goals. Two, there is a limited supply of vacant land remaining within the City. Since 2006, the City has acquired park land equivalent to twenty-two and thirty-eight hundredths percent (22.38%) of the potential park acreage it would have purchased had it expended the full component of park impact fees collected that were intended for land acquisition. Specifically, total park fee expenditures since 2006 have equaled $15,494,816 which indicates that the City could have acquired and developed 5.36 acres of parkland ($15,494,816 divided by $2,890,000). The actual park acreage acquired since 2006 was only 1.2 acres, which equals 22.38% of the potential park acres that should have been acquired. Given a continuation of this practice by the City, the amount anticipated to be spent on land acquisition would be only 22.38% of $2,500,000 per acre, or the equivalent of $559,500 per acre for each of the 4.26 acres per 1,000 new residents. If this trend was to continue in the future, total adjusted parkland acquisition and recreation facilities costs would be $949,500 per acre ($559,500 for land acquisition plus $390,000 for improvements). 3. ALTERNATIVE 2 Alternative 2 recognizes that this Park Fee Study will establish a development impact fee for park and recreation facilities that will be applicable to all residential development, and therefore the City anticipates that there will be fee revenues sufficient to acquire parkland in the future at approximately twice the historical (2006 — 2014) rate, or forty- five percent (45.00%), resulting in the expenditure of an equivalent of $1,125,000 per acre for each of the 4.26 acres per 1,000 new residents. Total adjusted parkland acquisition and recreation facilities costs projected under this scenario would be $1,515,000 per acre ($1,125,000 for land acquisition plus $390,000 for improvements). In addition, Alternative 2 (i) caps the fee for apartment projects comprised of fewer than fifty (50) dwelling units at the fee level for Multi -family and (ii) substitutes the Alternative 1 land acquisition cost of $559,500 per acre adjusted by an additional fifty percent (50.00%) for apartment projects with fifty (50) or more dwelling units in recognition that a DIF for Apartments has not previously been imposed and large apartment projects typically include on-site recreation amenities such as a recreation or community room, dog runs, pools, barbecues, etc. Total adjusted parkland acquisition and recreation facilities costs for apartment projects with 50 or more dwelling units would be $669,750 per acre ($559,500 for land acquisition multiplied by 0.50 (or $279,750) plus $390,000 for improvements). Section V below shows the calculation of the development impact fees for park and recreation facilities for all three scenarios. City of Costa Mesa Page 16 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 V. METHODOLOGY UTILIZED TO CALCULATE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Pursuant to the nexus requirements of Government Code 66000, a local agency is required to "determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the development impact fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed." It is impossible to accurately determine the impact that a specific new residential unit will have on existing facilities. Predicting future residents' specific behavioral patterns, park, and health and welfare requirements is extremely difficult, and would involve numerous assumptions that are subject to substantial variances. Recognizing these limitations, the Legislature drafted AB 1600 to specifically require that a "reasonable" relationship be determined, not a direct cause and effect relationship. This reasonable relationship, which was discussed in detail in Section II of the Park Fee Study, is summarized in Table V-1. TABLE V-1 PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES I AB 1600 NExus TEST Identify Purpose of Fee j Park and Recreation Facilities Identify Use of Fee Demonstrate how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility, the use of the fee, and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed The design, acquisition, installation, and construction of public park and recreation facilities, including parkland New residential development will generate additional residents who will increase the demand for active and passive park and recreation facilities within the City. Land will have to be purchased and improved to meet this increased demand, thus a reasonable relationship exists between the need for park and open space facilities and the impact of residential development. Fees collected from new development will be used exclusively for park and open space facilities identified in Section IV. There are many methods or ways of calculating development impact fees, but they are all based on determining the cost of needed improvements and assigning those costs equitably to various types of development. Development impact fees in this study have been calculated utilizing a "standards-based" methodology. The fee levels are a function of (i) the City's existing park standard of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents, (ii) the estimated cost per acre for new park and recreation facilities, and (iii) the estimated PPH. One global assumption utilized within this Park Fee Study for the allocation of costs between existing and new development relates to the allocation of costs based on the facilities standard. The public parks and recreation facilities described in Section IV are 100% allocated to new residential development because these facilities are specifically a function of projected new residents within the City and do not reflect any unmet needs or deficiency pertaining to existing development. The recommended fee levels and fee calculation methodologies are summarized in Tables V-2 and V-3 below. City of Costa Mesa Page 17 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August4, 2015 TABLE V-2 PARK ANN RECREATION ALTERNATIVE 1 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES BASED ON HISTORICAL RATE OF PARXIAND ACQUISITION FROM 2006 - 2014 tDENTIAL ELLING U - 14CR£5, COSTr ACRES COST / Single Family 2.79 2.17 4.26 4.26 $949,500 $949,500 $11,285.192 $8,777.377 Multi -family Apartment 2.62 4.26 $949,500 1 $10,597.562 1 Column C represents the General Plan standard of 4.26 park and recreation acres per 1,000 residents. z Fee equals Column B x Column C / 1,000 x Column D. TABLE V-3 RESIDENTIAL ACRES COST / DWELLING .UNIT TYPE PPH. ACRE FLE 2.7900 Single Family 4.26 $1,515,000 $18,006.382 Multi -family 2.1700 4.26 $1,515,000 $14,004.962 Apartment < 50 Project Dwelling Units 2.6200 4.26 $1,515,000 $14,004.963 >= 50 Project Dwelling Units 1.7723 4.26 $669,750 $5,056.61 1 Column C represents the General Plan standard of 4.26 park and recreation acres per 1,000 residents. z Fee equals Column B x Column C / 1,000 x Column D. 3 Capped at fee level for Multi -family. City of Costa Mesa Page 18 Park and Recreation Facilities Development ImFact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 —(1 APPENDIX A MAP OF VACANT LAND SALES Ilei S a W 3 i m�—qw `L O�y i Y(rf� r � I MacAfthur B4vd a s gra Im pod'. t nS �� sn /p A0014%-- 35 isintnva8 a a a .. Pb nwIruotd R �J ❑� i U I JvgJRH 14> en E Placem;s AO i5 piem U- N Iti ri .7rh3 qr C O © O a �3 CD w w49 -iQgaeH a � EV n 0 m 3 aAV pl)UO3 4 CL � 3 z Z ko I x 35 isintnva8 a a a �J ��OuBeyW IS e,Jou6fVI V C N Iti ri .7rh3 qr C O © O a �3 CD w w49 -iQgaeH a � EV n 0 m 3 aAV pl)UO3 4 CL � 3 z Z ko I GI 35 isintnva8 a a a �J ��OuBeyW IS e,Jou6fVI GI APPENDIX B CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENCINITAS COMMUNITY PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA City of Encinitas Source: USS Cal Bid and Native Grow Nursery Bid (www.ci.encinitas,ca.us) Land Acquisition EIR, Design, and Development Construction (USS Cal Builders) Park Amenities Landscaping Landscaping (Native Grow Nursery) Park Acres Construction Cost per Acre (Park Amenities only) Landscaping Cost per Acre Total Improvement Costs per Acre Land Acquisition Costs per Acre Description Encinitas Community Park Construction General Work Mobilization Clear and Grub Grading Fine Grading Soil Removal/Recompaction Soil Reuse (Primary Soils Management Zone) Storm Water Pollution Control/ SWPPP Striping, Signage, & Painted Curb Traffic Control Utility Work Fire Hydrant Assembly Reclaimed Water 1-1/2" PVC Reclaimed Water 2" PVC Reclaimed Water 12" PVC Reclaimed Service 1-1/2" Reclaimed Water Service 6" Sewer 4" PVC Sewer 6" PVC Sewer 8" PVC Sewer Cleanout Sewer- Cut and Cap Existing Pump Station Sewer Manhole Water 1/2" PVC Water 1" PVC Water 2" PVC Water 8" PVC Water 12" PVC Water- Remove Existing ACP Water Service 1" Water Service 2" Summary Total Costs $18,200,000 $5,250,000 $11,216,788 $2,710,855 $122,594 44.00 $254,927 $64,397 $319,324 $413,636 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail uantit Unit Cost 1 LS 1 LS 164,100 CY 1,533,000 SF 32,000 CY 55,000 CY 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS 4 EA 220 LF 695 LF 3,035 LF 2 EA 1 EA 710 LF 1,240 LF 649 LF 29 EA 1 EA 2 EA 980 LF 555 LF 320 LF 1,250 LF 2,735 LF 1,100 LF 3 EA 1 EA $216,000.00 $87,000.00 $1.62 $0.11 $ 2.81 $9.35 $27,000.00 $48,600.00 $54,000.00 $5,562.00 $12.42 $15.12 $115.56 $3,456.00 $23,247.00 $48.60 $51.84 $92.88 $648.00 $1,080.00 $6,307.20 $10.80 $11.88 $15.12 $75.60 $133.92 $5.40 $3,990.60 $5,346.00 Subtotal $216,000.00 $87,000.00 $265,842.00 $168,630.00 $89,920.00 $514,250.00 $27,000.00 $48,600.00 $54,000.00 $22,248.00 $2,732.40 $10,508.40 $350,724.60 $6,912.00 $23,247.00 $34,506.00 $64,281.60 $60,279.12 $18,792.00 $1,080.00 $12,614.40 $10,584.00 $6,593.40 $4,838.40 $94,500.00 $366,271.20 $5,940.00 $11,971.80 $5,346.00 Drainage Atrium Drain 129 EA $248.40 $32,043.60 Bio -Retention Area (C -1.8,p22) 1 LS $183,600.00 $183,600.00 Bio -Retention Area (Dog Park) 1 LS $41,040.00 $41,040.00 Catch Basin and Grate 73 EA $1,431.00 $104,463.00 Catch Basin per SDRSD D-8 3 EA $2,997.00 $8,991.00 Curb Inlet 5 EA $5,076.00 $25,380.00 HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 18" 2,540 LF $64.80 $164,592.00 HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 24" 450 LF $77.76 $34,992.00 Headwall 3 EA $2,700.00 $8,100.00 Headwall w/ Trashrack 12 EA $3,888.00 $46,656.00 Headwall with Manifold 1 EA $4,050.00 $4,050.00 Junction Structure - APWA 331 3 EA $540.00 $1,620.00 Junction Structure - APWA 332 25 EA $702.00 $17,550.00 Manhole 5 EA $5,454.00 $27,270.00 Manhole - APWA 320/ Modified APWA 320 3 EA $9,558.00 $28,674.00 —(05— Total Grand Total $13,927,642 $1,471,242.00 $1,113,970.32 $1,544,243.40 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail - Continued Description Quantity Unit Cost Subtotal Parkway Culvert APWA 151 11 EA $2,430.00 $26,730.00 Perforated Drain at Backstop (4") 570 LF $37.80 $21,546.00 Rip -Rap 3,125 SF $21.60 $67,500.00 Stormceptor 1 EA $49,194.00 $49,194.00 Storm Drain 6" PVC 6,800 LF $31.86 $216,648.00 Storm Drain 8" PVC 2,580 LF $35.91 $92,647.80 Storm Drain 10" PVC 145 LF $64.80 $9,396.00 Storm Drain 12" PVC 2,420 LF $54.00 $130,680.00 Storm Drain 54" rcp 366 LF $367.20 $134,395.20 Storm Drain Cleanout 11 EA $324.00 $3,564.00 Subdrain- Play Area 40 LF $59.40 $2,376.00 U -Channel V-6" 50 LF $27.00 $1,350.00 V -ditch V-6" Deep 1,185 LF $27.00 $31,995.00 V -Gutter 1,095 LF $24.84 $27,199.80 Building, Fence, and Wall Improvements Building -South Concession/ Restroom 1 LS $525,000.00 $525,000.00 Building- North Restroom 1 LS $510,000.00 $510,000.00 Electrical- Main Service 1 LS $59,400.00 $59,400.00 Electrical- Site Conduits, Conductors, Trenching, Complete 1 LS $95,040.00 $95,040.00 Light Fixture 14' 58 EA $7,000.00 $406,000.00 Light Fixture (18' single head) 11 EA $8,835.00 $97,185.00 Light Fixture (18' double head) 2 EA $15,120.00 $30,240.00 Light Fixture (20' single head) 58 EA $10,044.00 $582,552.00 Light Fixture (20' double head) 10 EA $10,962.00 $109,620.00 Light Fixture- Bollard 4 EA $9,450.00 $37,800.00 Junction Box for Future Light 69 EA $1,252.00 $86,388.00 Fencing- Backstops at 2 Ballfields 1 LS $155,000.00 $155,000,00 Fencing- 6' HT. Chainlink 360 LF $37.80 $13,608.00 Fencing- 8' HT, Chainlink 1,340 LF $59.40 $79,596.00 Fencing- 20' HT, Chainlink 450 LF $145.80 $65,610.00 Fencing- Lodge Pole 115 LF $48.60 $5,589.00 Gate w/ Pilasters -Tubular Steel 1 LS $14,040.00 $14,040.00 Trash Enclosures 2 EA $31,054.00 $62,108.00 Wall- 18" HT. at Park Entry 70 LF $75.60 $5,292.00 Wall -18" Planter 300 LF $75.60 $22,680.00 Wall -4' HT. For Material Bin Storage 70 LF $86.40 $6,048.00 Wall 6' HT. Masonry w/ Pilaster 4,105 LF $135.00 $554,175.00 Wall- Cheek Wall At Stair 175 LF $86.40 $15,120.00 Wall- 6' HT. Masonry at Maintenance Yard 140 LF $135.00 $18,900.00 Wall- Planter/Ret., incl. Guard Rail where required 475 LF $145.80 $69,255.00 Wall -Seat Walls 45 LF $378.00 $17,010.00 Site Improvements Asphalt Paving 2700 TON $100.00 $270,000.00 Bollards at Lot 'A' 7 EA $702.00 $4,914.00 Class II Base- Provide and Place 8,009 TON $23.76 $190,293.84 Class II Base- Place Onsite Material 6,529 TON $23.76 $155,129.04 Color Concrete Band 18" Wide 2105 LF $19.44 $40,921.20 Color Concrete Walkways 116,040 SF $9.18 $1,065,247.20 Concrete Mowcurb 6" Wide 6,750 LF $12.96 $87,480.00 Concrete Mowcurb 12" Wide 1,130 LF $16.20 $18,306.00 Concrete Stairs at Ball Fields 625 LF $54.00 $33,750.00 6" Curb/ Class II Base 8,350 LF $17.28 $144,288.00 6" Curb & Gutter/ Class II Base 3,670 LF $22.68 $83,235.60 6" Curb & Gutter w/block out/ Class II Base 1,600 LF $25.92 $41,472.00 Curb Ramp 25 EA $810.00 $20,250.00 Driveway Approach - SDRSD G -14A 1 EA $2,268.00 $2,268.00 Grass Pavel 1,480 SF $13.50 $19,980.00 Overlook w/ Seatwall, Conc. Band, & Interlocking Paver 1 LS $29,160.00 $29,160.00 Pavers 13,285 SF $9.18 $121,956.30 6" PCC Pavement 785 SF $8.10 $6,358.50 Simulated Bridges, Complete with Lodge Pole Fence, Stamped Concrete, and Flatwork 2 EA $7,020,00 $14,040.00 Stabilized Decomposed Granite Walkways w/ Curbing 9,2455F $14.04 $129,799.80 - (0 - Total $3,643,256.00 $2,478,849.48 Description Site Furnishings Bat Rack @ Dugouts Bench @ Dugouts Bench- Custom with Back Bench- Custom without Back Bike Rack Bleacher w/ Guard Rail BQ Unit Group BQ Unit Single Concrete Seating Pad- Accessible Concrete Seating Pad Picnic Tables Picnic Pads (Large 327 SF) Picnic Pads (Small 130 SF) Improvement/Construction Costs Detail - Continued Quantity Unit Cost Subtotal Total $304,938.00 Pitching Rubber, Bases, Home Plate (Complete Set) Pedestrian Drinking Fountain Score Table Trash / Recycle Receptacles (Install Only) Street Improvements Adjust Existing Facility to Grade Asphalt Deeplift Asphalt Dike (6") Asphalt Grind and Overlay Asphalt Paving Class II Base Concrete Alley Apron Concrete Crass Gutter Concrete Driveway (w/8" PCC/6" AB) Concrete Enhanced Paving @ Santa Fe Entry Concrete Pedestrian Ramp Concrete Sidewalk 6" Curb/ Class II Base 6" Curb & Gutter/ Class II Base 6" Curb & Gutter (Rolled), Incl. Transitions/ Class II Base Grass Pavel Miscellaneous Relocations Parkway Culvert Sawcut Traffic Signal and Signage Improvements 3" PVC Conduit 2" PVC Conduit Signal Cables and Wires 6T Pull Box 6E Pull Box 5T Pull Box 5E Pull Box Type 1A Pale and Foundation Type 15TS Pole, Foundation, 15' Lum Arm HPS Luminaire SV -4 -TB SV -1-T SP -1-T Ped. Head SP -2-T Ped Head Polara Audible Navigator PPB Assembly and System Type E Loop Detector Overhead Box Guard Miscellaneous Equipment Modification Miscellaneous Relocations/ Removals 4 EA $2,700.00 $10,800.00 4 EA $2,970.00 $11,880.00 22 EA $1,620.00 $35,640.00 6 EA $1,620.00 $9,720.00 5 EA $810.00 $4,050.00 4 EA $7,020.00 $28,080.00 5 EA $702.00 $3,510.00 10 EA $486,00 $4,860.00 7 EA $2,700.00 $18,900.00 12 EA $2,700.00 $32,400.00 28 EA $1,458.00 $40,824.00 8 EA $3,780.00 $30,240.00 12 EA $1,512.00 $18,144.00 2 EA $5,940.00 $11,880.00 4 EA $2,970.00 $11,880.00 2 EA $1,890.00 $3,780.00 35 EA $810.00 $28,350.00 11 EA $702.00 $7,722.00 450 LF $9.72 $4,374.00 30 LF $9.72 $291.60 165 SF $2.16 $356.40 151 TON $102.60 $15,492.60 247 TON $23.76 $5,868.72 1020 SF $6.48 $6,609.60 480 SF $6.48 $3,110.40 2 EA $2,052.00 $4,104.00 208 SF $8.10 $1,684.80 8 EA $449.28 $3,594.24 2000 SF $4.86 $9,720.00 180 LF $17.28 $3,110.40 595 LF $21.60 $12,852.00 36 LF $22.68 $816.48 225 SF $13.50 $3,037.50 1 LS $8,100.00 $8,100.00 1 EA $2,430.00 $2,430.00 675 LF $10.80 $7,290.00 180 LF $27.00 $4,860.00 150 LF $27.00 $4,050.00 1 LS $21,600.00 $21,600.00 1 EA $1,620.00 $1,620.00 1 EA $1,890.00 $1,890.00 1 EA $1,890.00 $1,890.00 2 EA $1,890.00 $3,780.00 1 EA $27,000.00 $27,000.00 1 EA $27,000.00 $27,000.00 1 EA $4,860.00 $4,860.00 1 EA $1,620.00 $1,620.00 1 EA $1,620.00 $1,620.00 1 EA $1,620.00 $1,620.00 1 EA $1,620.00 $1,620.00 8 EA $243,000.00 $194,400.00 22 EA $4,860.00 $106,920.00 1 EA $1,620.00 $1,620.00 1 LS $12,960.00 $12,960.00 1 LS $16,200.00 $16,200,00 6-1 — $100,564.74 $437,130.00 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail - Continued Description Quantity Unit Cost Subtotal Total Landscaping $2,710,854.55 1 Gal. Container Planting (Install Only) 50,640 EA $1.94 $98,241.60 15 Gal. Tree 461 EA $129.60 $59,745.60 24" Box Tree 452 EA $259.20 $117,158.40 3" Mulch 4,325 CY $34.56 $149,472.00 Bio-Retention Planter Strips 6,280 SF $4.32 $27,129.60 Bio-Swale w/ Boulders, Pebbles at Parking Lot E 2240 SF $9.18 $20,563.20 Garden Buffer Bioswale w/ Boulders, Cobble 31295 SF $9.18 $287,288,10 Hydroseed Mix (Irrigated) 126,315 SF $0.45 $56,841,75 Hydroseed Mix (Non-irrigated) 329,375 SF $0.06 $19,762.50 Infield Mix 45,740 SF $1.30 $59,462.00 Irrigation (Complete) 1,154,545 SF $1.14 $1,316,181.30 Palm Brehea armata 5' B.T. 13 EA $3,780.00 $49,140.00 Palm Brehea armata 8' B.T. 7 EA $4,590.00 $32,130.00 Palm Brehea armata 10' B.T. 3 EA $5,400.00 $16,200.00 Palm Phoenix reclinata 10' B.T. 8 EA $5,940.00 $47,520.00 Palm Queen 15' B.T. 35 EA $540.00 $18,900.00 Palm Queen 18' B.T. 20 EA $432.00 $8,640.00 Palm Queen 20' B.T. 16 EA $432.00 $6,912.00 Soil Preparation 1,155,545 SF $0,22 $254,219.90 Turf Stolons 624,740 SF $0.09 $56,226.60 Vegetated Swale 24,000 SF $0.38 $9,120.00 NATIVE GROVE NURSERY - LANDSCAPING $122,593.95 Achillea'Island Pink' 1,340 $1.80 $2,412.00 Aloe Arorescens 658 $2.10 $1,381.80 Alyogyne Hugelii 216 $2.05 $442.80 Arctostaphyos Hooker! 'Monterey Carpet' 478 $2-25 $1,075.50 Arteisia'PowisCastle' 131 $1.90 $248.90 Baccharis Pllularls'Pigeon Point' 1,439 $1.80 $2,590.20 Buddleja Davidii Nanohoensis 268 $2.40 $643.20 Cares Divulsa 6,774 $2.10 $14,225.40 Carex Spissa 1,097 $2.10 $2,303.70 Carssa Macrocarpa 'Tuttle' 1,207 $2.10 $2,534.70 Ceanothus Gloriosus'Emily Brown' 701 $2.60 $1,822.60 Ceanothus'Yankee Point' 372 $2.20 $818.40 Cistus Purpurus 2,532 $2.25 $5,697.00 Dasyliron Wheeleri 1,644 $2.60 $4,274.40 Denromecon Hafordii 639 $3.10 $1,980.90 Hemerocallis Hybrid 404 $2.25 $909.00 Hesperaloe Parviflora 3,409 $2.25 $7,670.25 Heteromeles Arbutifolia 396 $3.60 $1,425.60 Loropetalum Chinese 119 $2.40 $285.60 Mahonia Repens 1,560 $3.80 $5,928.00 Muhlenbergla Capillaris'Regal Mist' 823 $2.25 $1,851.75 Muhlenbergia Rigens 2,148 $2.10 $4,510.80 Myoporum Parvifolum 'Putah Creek" 678 $2.40 $1,627.20 Parthenocissus Tricuspidata 45 $28.50 $1,282.50 Penstemon Barbatus'Navigator' 3,459 $1.80 $6,226.20 Pennisetum Setaceum'Rubrum' 684 $2.60 $1,778.40 Photinia Fraseri 205 $2.25 $461.25 Phormuim'Wings of Gold' 436 $3.10 $1,351.60 Pittosporum Tobira 'Variegatum' Mock Orange 313 $2.20 $688.60 Prunus Ilicfolia 365 $2.60 $949.00 Rhamus Californica 554 $3.10 $1,717.40 Ribes Viburnifolium 327 $3.10 $1,013.70 Rosa Floribunda 'Bright Pink Iceburg' 151 $2.80 $422.80 Rosmarimus Officinalis'Huntington Carpet' 16,368 $2.10 $34,372.80 Salvia Celevelandii'Winnifield Gilman' 657 $2.10 $1,379.70 Salvia Leucantha 1,803 $2.10 $3,786.30 Westingia Fruticosa 135 $2.10 $283.50 Xylosma Congestum 98 $2.25 $220.50 APPENDIX C 1URUPA AREA RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT HORSESHOE LAKE PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA --rq- Land Acquisition Construction Park Acres Construction Cost per Acre Description Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District Source: DTA, DIF Study, 2006 Summary Total Costs n/a $2,375,000 13.00 $182,692 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Horseshoe Lake Park Design and Development of Horseshoe Lake Park Subtotal $2,375,000 Total $2,375,000 APPENDIX D 1URUPA AREA RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA -I I- Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District Source: DTA, DIF Study, 2006 Summary Total Costs Land Acquisition n/a Construction $1,487,750 Park Acres 9.98 Construction Cost per Acre $149,073 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Description Subtotal Veteran's Memorial Park BBQs, Picnic Tables, Benches, and Trash Receptacles $18,750 ADA Drinking Fountains $4,000 Security Lighting $31,250 Picnic Shelter and Slab $81,250 Half Court Basketball Court $27,500 Construction of Restroom Combination Storage Building $181,250 Demolition of Horseshoe Court Area $18,750 Construction of Teen Mini -Activity Center with Outdoor Amphitheatre $1,125,000 --72_____ 7L____ Total $1,487,750 APPENDIX E CITY OF LAKE FOREST - SPORTS PARK - 73 --- Lake Forest - Skate Park Source: Bid Results, 2013 Summary Total Costs Land Acquisition n/a Construction $35,888,810 Park Acres 86.20 Construction Cost per Acre $416,344 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Description Subtotal Total $35,888,810 Project Start Up $1,937,400 General Construction $1,700,000 Temporary Construction Fence $60,900 Construction Staking and Surveying $120,000 Traffic Control, Public $6,500 Sheeting, Shoring, and Bracing $5,000 Supplemental Traffic $20,000 Permits, Licensing, and Fees $25,000 Demoliton $5,000 Demolition, Removal, $5,000 Earthwork $420,500 Site Grading $300,000 Laser Grading Ball Field 1 $2,500 Ball Field 2 $2,500 Ball Field 3 $2,500 Ball Field 4 $2,500 Ball Field 5 $2,500 "Commons" Lawn Area $13,000 Synthetic Turf Base $5,000 Southern Natural Turf Athletic Fields $25,000 Erosion Control $30,000 SWPPP Implementation and Monitoring $35,000 Storm Drain Improvements $885,000 Storm Drain $885,000 Sewer Improvements $205,000 Sewer Improvements $205,000 Water Improvements $245,000 Water Improvements $245,000 Natural Gas Improvements $13,000 Natural Gas $13,000 -74- Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Description Subtotal Architecture Recreation Center, Complete $6,485,000 Restroom / Concession Buildings, Complete $1,940,000 Trash Enclosures, Complete $50,000 Shade Structures at $840,000 Shade Structures at Ball Fields - Design Build Ball Field 1- Design Build $72,000 Ball Field 2 - Design Build $72,000 Ball Field 3 - Design Build $72,000 Ball Field 4 - Design Build $72,000 Ball Field 5 - Design Build $72,000 Shade Structure at $333,000 Shade Structures at $160,000 40' x 40' Shade Structures - Design Build $400,000 30' x 30' Shade Structures - Design Build $325,000 30' x 30' Maintenance $95,000 Glass Creek Overlook $185,000 Paving 4" Asphaltic Concrete $725,000 Architectural Concrete $3,110,000 Natural Concrete Paving $430,000 Plexipave Surface $11,000 Flagstone Paving, Complete $226,000 Pedestrian "Bridges", Complete $17,000 Concrete Mow Curbs $445,000 Playground Resilient Surfacing Northern Tot Lot $79,000 Southern Tot Lot $160,000 'Organic Lock' Decomposed Granite $45,000 Decomposed Granite $2,500 Interlocking Concrete Pavers $72,000 Site Striping, Markings, $30,000 Walls Concrete Masonry Unit $777,000 Concrete Cast-inPlace $370,000 Entry Monument Walls, Complete Rancho Parkway $80,000 Portola Parkway $37,000 Vista Terrace $17,000 'Cultured' Stone Veneer $700,000 Fencing/Metal Work Lodgepole Fencing, Complete $62,000 Metal Guardrails for all $356,000 Metal Handrails for all $58,000 Tubular Steel Fence and $172,000 Permanent Chain Link $550,000 Sliding Tubular Steet $24,000 HDPE Lumber at Ball Fields 1-5 $36,000 Netting, Posts, and Foul $520,000 Cor -Ten Steel Animal Silhouettes $11,000 Embedded Cor -Ten Steel Leaves $6,500 Phase One Access $5,000 --15- -- Total $11,173,000 $5,352,500 $1,981,000 $1,800,500 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Description Subtotal Total Site Electrical $2,900,000 Site Electrical for all Work required, Complete $2,900,000 Site Furnishings $1,263,000 Site Furnishings, Complete $672,000 Playground Equipment, Complete North Tot Lot $95,000 South Tot Lot $417,000 Wayfinding Signage and $13,000 Field Striper $1,000 SunPac Trailers, Complete $65,000 Irrigation $1,775,410 Recycled Water Irrigation System, Complete $1,685,000 Domestic Water Irrigation, Complete $90,410 Landscape $3,997,500 Soil Preparation / Fine Grading $230,000 Planting and Landscape $2,035,000 Dwarf Hybrid Bermuda Turf (Sod), Complete $865,000 Hydroseed Mix No. 1 $10,000 Synthetic Turf Drainage System Fields A & B $260,000 Batting Cages $12,500 Sand at South Tot Lot $1,000 Engineered Wood Fiber at South Tot Lot $27,500 Infield Mix at Ball Fields 1-5 $180,000 Hilltopper' Mound Mix at Ball Field 4 $5,000 'La Cresta' Boulders for $65,000 Thematic Dry Creek Bed $10,000 Dos Rios Cobble for all $40,000 Cobble Edging at Building Perimeter $2,000 90 -Day Site $254,500 Bid Alternatives $1,935,000 Dwarf Hybrid Bermuda $605,000 Natural Stone Veneer $1,130,000 Import Dirt Contingency $100,000 Export Dirt Contingency $100,000 --76--- APPENDIX F CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL - CROWN VALLEY PARK -'71 - Total Costs Land Acquisition Construction Park Acres Construction Cost per Acre Description .General Mobilization (Not to exceed 2% of contract price) Develop Construction Water Payment and Performance Bonds Construction Field Office Traffic Control Site Preparation Clearing and Grubbing Instill Temporary Construction Chain Link Fence Rough Grading Over Excavation (5 ft average) unsuitable material excavation and recompaction (keyway) Ampitheatre - 4" PVC Schedule 40 Perforated Pipe Back Drain with Filter Material 4" PVC Schedule 40 Pipe On -Site Export Materials Disposal/Handling Erosion Control (Entire Site) Demolition Exist Ampitheatre Area - Demolition Ex. Spray Ground Play Area - Demolition Precise Grading Construction - Ampitheatre 6" Curb per OCPW STD 120-2 3' Cross Gutter 4" AC/10" AB Sidewalk Access Ramp Grade Keyway 5'x15' Replace Salvaged Gate 0" to 6" Curb Transition 0" Curb per OCPW STD 120-2 10" Wide Seatwall Seatwall (18" Wall Retaining -Note 18) Concrete (Retaining Wall -H -Varies) 12" Wide Border with Grooves Landscape Tie Steps Seatwall (18" Wall Retaining -Note 20) DG Trail Drainage Construction - Ampitheatre 4" PVC Subdrain 4" Perforated Pipe 6" PVC 8" PVC Connect to Ex Storm Drain 12" Area Drain Conc. V -Ditch 12" Landscape Drain 18" Area Drain 12" Area Drain 1' Concrete Wide V -Ditch 18" N-12 HDPE Pipe 4" Trench Drain Concrete Cradle 24" HDPE Piple Manhole 6" Clean -Out Trench Backfill/PVMT Repair Construction - Ampitheatre Accessibile Stall Striping Accessible Parking Sign 4" Wheel Stop Stall Striping Re -Stripe Hump Markings Re -Stripe Crosswalk Laguna Niguel - Crown Valley Community Park Source: Bid Results, 2014 Summary n/a $4,599,531 18.00 $255,529 Improvement/Construction Costs Detall Unit Cost uantlt 1.00 LS 1.00 LS 1.00 LS 1.00 LS 1.00 LS L58 AC 1.00 LS 13,010.00 CY 3,280.00 CY 304.00 LF 135.00 LF 3,070.00 CY 1.00 LS 1.00 LS 1.00 LS 103.00 LF 69.00 5F 1,271.00 SF 1.00 EA 150.00 CY 1.00 EA LF - LF 122.00 LF 112-00 LF 400.00 SF 1,00 EA 3,00 EA 23.00 LF 427.00 SF 19.00 LF 447.00 LF 257.00 LF 153.00 LF 4.00 EA 4.00 EA 7.00 EA EA 1.00 EA 190.00 LF 293.00 LF 82.00 LF LF 2.00 EA 3.00 EA 131.00 SF 144.00 SF 2.00 EA 2.00 EA 18.00 LF 2.00 EA 31.00 LF $90,000.00 $9,740.00 $68,850.00 $6,377.00 $2,085.00 $11,361.00 $10,957.00 $6.50 $8.60 $50.00 $21.00 $8.00 $15,974.00 $40,433.00 $31,517.00 $18,00 $17.00 $10.00 $1,768.00 $36.28 $3,305.00 $0.00 $0-00 $222.00 $243.00 $75.83 $185.00 $692.00 $263.00 $4.00 $23.00 $27.00 $26.00 $27.00 $1,147.00 $600.00 $230.00 $0.00 $599.00 $33.00 $33.00 $151.00 $0.00 $3,711.00 $995.00 $38.00 $17,00 $522.00 $116,00 $7.00 $407.00 $35.00 Subtotal Total Grand Total $4,599,531 $177,052.00 $90,000.00 $9,740.00 $68,850.00 $6,377,00 $2,085.00 $28,907.38 $17,950.38 $10,957.00 $84,565.00 $28,208.00 $15,200.00 $2,83500 $24,560.00 $15,974.00 $40,433.00 $31,517.00 $1,854.00 $1,173.00 $12,710.00 $1,768.00 $5,442.00 $3,305.00 $0.00 $0.00 $27,084.00 $27,216.00 $30,332.00 $185.00 $2,076.00 $6,049.00 $1,708.00 $437.00 $12,069.00 $6,682.00 $4,131.00 $4,588.00 $2,400.00 $1,610.00 $0.00 $599.00 $6,270.00 $9,669.00 $12,382.00 $0.00 $7,422.00 $2,985.00 $4,978.00 $2,448.00 $1,044.00 $232.00 $126.00 $814.00 $1,085.00 $171,342.00 $71,950.00 $120,902,00 $76,222.00 $5,749.00 Description Site Amenities - Ampitheatre Concrete A: Natural Color Concrete B: Salmon Colored, 24" Scored Concrete C: Mesa Buff Colored Banding Concrete D: Checkerboard Finish, MICA, 24" Scored Concrete F: Salmon Colored Decomposed Granite Concrete Mowstrip Concrete Risers Stage Ramp Railing Parking Lot Ramp Railing Concrete Curb Ampitheatre Stage Stone Structure Ampitheatre Overhead Framework Ampitheatre Stage Lighting Site Furniture Trash Receptacles Recycled Material Receptacle Bench Botanical Preserve Sign with Pilasters Grading Edge Adjustments Irrigation - Ampitheatre Automatic Irrigation System Automatic Controller Planting - Ampitheatre Soil Preparation and Weed Abatement Sodded Turf - Ampitheatre Artificial Turf 3" Thick Layer of Mulch 36" Box Tree 5 Gallon Shrub 1 Gallon Shrub Post Installation Maintenance - Amoitheatre 90 Day Maintenance Precise Grading Construction-Sprayground Play Area 6" Curb per OCPW STD 120-2 4" HMA Over 6" AB 4" Sidewalk 0" to 6" Curb Transition 0" Curb per OCPW STD 120-2 8" Wide Seatwall Concrete (Retain) Wall Retaining Wall (2:1 Backfill) 6" CMU Wall 12" Wide Border with Grooves (At H/C Ramps) Seatwall (18" Wall Retaining -Note 20) Seatwall (18" Wall Retaining -Note 18) Drainage Construction - Spravground Play Area 4" PVC Subdrain 4" Perforated Pipe 6" PVC 8" PVC Connect to Ex Storm Drain 12" Area Drain Conc. V -Ditch 12" Landscape Drain 6" Landscape Drain 12" Area Drain 18" Area Drain 1' Concrete Wide V -Ditch 18" PVC Connect to Rain Drop Box 4" Trench Drain 12" PVC 4" Trench Drain JS Type VI 24" HDPE 6" Clean -Out Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Unit Cost Subtotal Tial Grand Total $295,322.00 6,463.00 SF $8,00 $51,704.00 140.00 SF $16.00 $2,240.00 686.00 SF $10.00 $6,860.00 1,182.00 SF $16.00 $18,912.00 937.00 SF $12.00 $11,244.00 28.00 CY $143.00 $4,004.00 195.00 LF $1L00 $2,145.00 236.00 LF $29.00 $6,844.00 60.00 LF $427.00 $25,620.00 84.00 LF $143.00 $12,012,00 23.00 LF $38.00 $874.00 1.00 EA $81,596,00 $81,596.00 1.00 EA $8,696.00 $8,696.00 1.00 LS $62,571.00 $62,571.00 5,00 EA $1,24(00 $6,200.00 3.00 EA $1,240.00 $3,720.00 1.00 EA $1,559.00 $1,559.00 L00 EA $5,382.00 $5,382.00 1.00 EA $8,217,00 $8,217.00 36,703.00 SF $2.00 $73,406.00 L00 EA $12,668.00 $12,668.00 36,703-00 SF $0.40 $14,681.20 30,905.00 SF $1.00 $30,905.00 2,208.00 SF $15.00 $33,120.00 5,798.00 SF $0.50 $2,899,00 5.00 EA $913.00 $4,565.00 324.00 EA $18.00 $5,832.00 731.00 EA $12.00 $8,772.00 36,703.00 SF $0.30 $11,010.90 322.00 LF $14.00 $4,508,00 3,233.00 SF $6.00 $19,398.00 - SF $0.00 $0.00 52.00 LF $14.00 $728.00 43.00 LF $16,00 $688.00 242.00 LF $242.00 $58,564.00 720.00 SF $87,00 $62,640.00 320.00 SF $101.00 $32,320.00 70.00 LF $174,00 $12,180.00 4.00 EA $1,224.00 $4,896.00 46.00 LF $146.00 $6,716.00 8.00 LF $321.00 $2,568.00 274,00 LF $25.00 $6,850.00 438.00 LF $28.00 $12,264.00 457.00 LF $29.00 $13,253.00 265.00 LF $30.00 $7,950.00 • EA $0.00 $0.00 11.00 EA $600.00 $6,600.00 - EA $0.00 $0.00 17.00 EA $246-00 $4,18400 5.00 EA $599.00 $2,995.00 • EA $0-00 $1100 341.00 LF $33.00 $11,253.00 - LF $0.00 $0.00 1.00 EA $432.00 $43200 111.00 LF $154.00 $17,094.00 26.00 LF $34.00 $884.00 62.00 LF $168.00 $10,416.00 2.00 EA $2,635.00 $5,270.00 - LF $0.00 $1100 3.00 EA $995.00 $2,985.00 - { 6 $25,078.00 $86,074.00 $100,774.20 $11,010.90 $205,206.00 $102.428.00 Description Wet Utility Services - Sprayground Play Area Install 2" Backflow Preventer 2" PVC Water Line Point of Connection to Bullding Connect to Ex Service Connect to Ex 1" Water Line 4" SDR -35 PVC Sewer Pipe Remove Cleanout and Join Connect to Drain Pipe Remove 1" Water Line Water Meter Storm Drain Construction - Sprayground Play Area 24" RCP Adjust Existing MH Remove Ex 24" RCP Concrete Saddle Concrete Collar Construction - Sprayground Play Area Accessibile Stall Striping Accessible Parking Sign 4" Wheel Stop Stall Striping Re -Stripe Crosswalk Erosion Control Site Amenities - Sprayground Play Area Concrete A: Natural Color Concrete B: Salmon Colored, 24" Scored Concrete C: Mesa Buff Colored Banding Concrete E: Checkerboard Finish, 48" Scored Concrete F: Salmon Colored Concrete G: Salmon with Mica Feldspar Concrete Risers Concrete Curb Concrete Mowstrip Mosaic Architectural Art Panel 42" High Guardrail Handrail at Steps and Ramps - Play Area Concrete Cheek Wall/Curb 42" Tubular Steel Fence with Embelllishments 6' High, Water Feature, Tubular Steel Fence Entry Archway with Columns - No Gates 6' High Tubular Steel Service Gates 6' x 5' High Tubular Steel Service Gates 6' x 10' High Tubular Steel Service Gates 6' High Pilasters 4' High Pilaster 30" High Pilasters Service Switchgear Total Site Lighting Fixtures Architecture - Spraveround Play Area Restroom and Pump Room Building Outdoor Shower and Drain to Sewer Life Guard Chair Shade Canopy at Picnic and Water Feature Areas Site Furniture -Spraveround Play Area ADA Picnic Table Picnic Table Bench Trash Receptacles Bike Rack Recycled Material Receptacle Play Equipment - Sprayground Play Area Water Spray Ground Features with Recycling Pump Playground Equipment and GFRC Amenities Ruberized Surfacing Water Spray Ground - Natural Color with Glass Sand Colored Concrete Irrigation -Spraveround Play Area Automatic Irrigation System Automatic Controller Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Unit Cost Subtotal Total Grand Total $41,192.00 2.00 EA $5,758.00 $11,516.00 190.00 LF $13.00 $2,470.00 3.00 EA $498.00 $1,494.00 2.00 EA $492.00 $984.00 1.00 EA $171.00 $171.00 72.00 LF $31,00 $2,232.00 2,00 EA $603,00 $1,206.00 1.00 EA $455.00 $455.00 78.00 LF $8.00 $624.00 2.00 EA $10,020.00 $20,040.00 108.00 LF $185.00 $19,980.00 1.00 EA $1,584.00 $1,584.00 545.00 LF $22.00 $11,990.00 31.00 LF $73,00 $2,263.00 3.00 EA $404.00 $1,212.00 143.00 SF $17.00 $2,431.00 2.00 EA $522.00 $1,044.00 2.00 EA $116.00 $232.00 278,00 LF $7.00 $1,946.00 51.00 LF $35.00 $1,785.00 1,00 LS $15,892,00 $15,892.00 5,316.00 SF $8.00 $42,528.00 285.00 SF $17.00 $4,845.00 760,00 SF $10,00 $7,600.00 3,334,00 SF $15.00 $50,010,00 640.00 SF $13.00 $8,320.00 179,00 SF $22.00 $3,938.00 252,00 LF $23,00 $5,796.00 165.00 LF $20.00 $3,300.00 150,00 LF $14.00 $2,100.00 1.00 LS $6,492.00 $6,492.00 3.00 LS $5,797.00 $17,39LO0 90.00 LF $416.00 $37,440.00 321,00 LF $485.00 $155,685.00 190.00 LF $191.00 $36,290.00 185.00 LF $536.00 $99,160.00 146,00 LF $450,00 $65,700.00 2.00 SET $29,212.00 $58,424,00 2,00 SET $13,333.00 $26,666,00 1.00 SET $4,116.00 $4,116.00 1,00 SET $7,189.00 $7,189,00 3.00 EA $5,41L00 $16,233.00 1.00 EA $5,382.00 $5,382.00 9.00 EA $2,551.00 $22,959.00 1.00 LS $124,609.00 $124,609,00 1.00 LS $684,329.00 $684,329.00 682.00 SF $700.00 $477,400.00 1.00 EA $10,319.00 $10,319.00 2.00 EA $1,780.00 $3,560.00 3.00 EA $21,520.00 $64,560.00 4.00 EA $2,386.00 $9,544.00 5.00 EA $2,133.00 $10,655.00 11.00 EA $1,559.00 $17,149.00 11.00 EA $1,240.00 $13,640.00 1.00 EA $934.00 $934.00 10,00 EA $2,204.00 $22,040.00 1.00 CY $259,705,00 $259,705.00 2.00 SET $174,882.00 $349,764.00 2,495.00 SF $26.00 $64,870.00 934.00 SF $19.00 $17,746.00 685.00 SF $10.00 $6,850.00 20,212.00 SF $2.00 $40,424.00 1.00 EA $12,668.00 $12,66800 4o.- $37,029.00 $23,330.00 $1,496,502.00 $555,839.00 $73,962.00 $698,935.00 $53,092.00 Description Planting - Snravground Play Area Soil Preparation and Weed Abatement Sodded Turf 3" Thick Layer of Mulch 60" Bax Tree 48" Box Tree 36" Box Tree 5 Gallon Shrub 1 Gallon Shrub Post Installation Maintenance - Spravground Play Area 90 Day Maintenance Landscape Ties Trash Enclosure 8"x8"x16" Precision Black CMU Wall 4" Mon PCC Curb 6" PCC Pavement 6"x4" Schedule 40 Gal Steel Tube FTG Fab and Install Metal Gate Fab Slide Bolt Install 6" Schedule 40 Gal Steel Bollards Mortar Cap Type A1-6 PCC Curb 3" AC Over 4" AB Pavement Sawcut and Remove AC Pavement Remove 6" Curb Paint DBL 4" Wide Striping Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Unit Cost Subtotal Total Grand Total $87,719.60 20,212.00 SF $0.50 $10,106.00 5,929.00 SF $0.90 $5,336.10 14,283.00 SF $050 $7,141.50 1.00 EA $5,481.00 $5,481.00 3.00 EA $1,495.00 $4,485.00 24.00 EA $889.00 $21,336.00 882.00 EA $19.00 $16,758.00 1,423.00 EA $12.00 $17,076.00 20,212.00 SF $0-40 $8,084.80 155.00 LF $35.00 $5,425.00 83.00 LF $133.00 $11,039.00 60.00 LF $13.00 $780.00 547.00 SF $7.00 $3,829.00 5.00 EA $552.00 $2,760,00 36.00 LF $389.00 $14,004.00 3.00 EA $267.00 $801.00 2.00 EA $487.00 $974.00 83.00 LF $4.00 $332.00 17.00 LF $27.00 $459.00 73.00 SF $12.00 $876.00 75.00 LF $13.00 $975.00 58.00 LF $16.00 $928.00 882.00 EA $3.00 $2,646.00 -Sl- $13,509.80 $40,403.00 APPENDIX G CITY OF PASADENA- DESIDERIO PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA 82 - Land Acquisition Pasadena Source: City CIP Budget, 2014 Summary Total Costs n/a Construction (Design & Development) Park Acres Construction Cost per Acre Location Description $2,410,000 3.80 $634,211 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Subtotal Total Desiderio Park Development of New Park $2,410,000 $2,410,000 -33- APPENDIX H CITY OF REDONDO BEACH - HEART PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA Redondo Beach Source: DTA, DIF Study, 2003 Summary Facility/Item Land Acquisition $227,397,770 Construction $32,473,900 Park Acres 76.50 Construction Cost per Acre $424,495 Land Acquisition Costs per Acre $2,972,520 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Subtotal Total Grand Total Heart Park $32,473,900 Area A $3,396,000 Community Events Center Site Acres 4.40 $250,000 $1,100,000 Multi -Use Community Event Area Acres 8.80 $25,000 $2,200,000 Parking Lot Per Space 120.00 $800 $96,000 Area B $1,035,500 Swimming/Tennis Complex Site Acres 2.30 $250,000 $575,000 Swimming Pool Square Feet 7,500.00 $55 $412,500 Tennis Courts Square Feet 57,600.00 - Parking Lot Per Space 60.00 $800 $48,000 area C $11,060,400 Active Recreation/Sports Acres 12.70 $250,000 $3,175,000 Natural Area Acres 7.90 $150,000 $1,185,000 Amphitheatre Square Feet 87,120.00 $20 $1,742,400 Passive Park Acres 11.00 $200,000 $2,200,000 Multl-Use Community Event Area Acres 5.00 $250,000 $1,250,000 Pedestrian Path Acres 8.40 $150,000 $1,260,000 Parking Lot Per Space 310.00 $800 $248,000 Area D $16,350,000 Harbor Recreation Acres 10.60 $250,000 $2,650,000 Boat Launch Acres 1.10 N/A $13,340,000 Parking Lot Per Space 450.00 $800 $360,000 Area E $632,000 Bike Path Trailhead Acres 0.60 $225,000 $135,000 Multi -Use Harbor Recreation Area Acres 1.10 $250,000 $425,000 Parking Lot Per Space 90.00 $800 $72,000 APPENDIX I CITY OF SAN MARCOS - BRADLEY PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA San Marcos - Bradley Park Source: Bradley Park Master Plan, 2014 Summary Land Acquisition n/a Construction Costs $12,492,484 Park Acres 34.00 Construction Cost per Acre $367,426 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Description Quantity Unit Cost One South Rancho Santa Fe Road on-site parking Head Start Parking Lot Pacific Street Parking Two Football/Soccer Field #1, Softball/Baseball Fields #1 & #2 241 Car Parking Lot with Access Drives Center Core Area Walking Trail Three Baseball Field #1 Softball/Baseball Field #3 & Soccer Field #4 Softball/Baseball Field #4 Restroom & Concession Building at S. Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Walking Trail Four Group Picnic Area at Lower Mesa Football/Soccer Field #2, Softball/Baseball Fields #5 & #6 Baseball Field #2 with Cover Play Area and Picnic Amenities Baseball Field #3 Subtotal Total Grand Total $12,492,484 $339,568 168 $552.45 $92,811 43 $2,866.21 $123,247 107 $1,154.30 $123,510 $4,552,878 $2,122,177 $1,070,011 $1,275,810 $84,880 $4,310,556 $1,582,821 $1,161,504 $932,111 $549,240 $84,880 $3,289,482 $212,157 $2,122,177 $694,207 $260,941 _90 APPENDIX J CITY OF TUSTIN - TUSTIN LEGACY PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA 6 Tustin Legacy Park Source: Tustin Legacy Park Master Plan, 2014 Summary Total Costs Land Acquisition n/a Design Contingency $1,158,626 Construction $16,816,265 Park Acres Construction Cost per Acre Description General Construction Mobilization Fine Grading Erosion Control Utilities 31.50 $533,850 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Total $1,139,482 Ballfields $1,927,000 3 Fields Lighting Amenities Miscellaneous Paving & Trails $890,000 Paving Trails Lighting Signage Multi- Purpose Fields $2,315,000 4 Fields Lighting Amenities Courts $750,000 Basketball Tennis Pickleball Sand Volleyball Lighting Amenities Children's Play Environment $2,110,000 Play Equipment Passive Areas Par Course Equipment Veteran' s Memorial Signage Amenities Parking Lots $2,110,000 Small Parking Lot Large Parking Lot Buildings $650,000 Two Buildings Skate Park $396,500 Lighting Amenities Miscellaneous Landscape & Irrigation $1,408,283 Soil Preparation Trees, Shrubs, Groundcover Irrrigation Additive Alternative $3,120,000 Synthetic Turf @ Soccer Fields Grand Total $16,816,265