HomeMy WebLinkAbout86-08 - Areas of Benefit for San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor6. 01. Qeeo rate r
bocu M&nt Rio- ?q-6 4 qi l3
RESOLUTION NO. 86-8
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE AREAS
OF BENEFIT AND THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE
FEE PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTA-
TION CORRIDOR.
WHEREAS, build -out of the land use element of the General Plan of the
City of Costa Mesa 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 San Joaquin
Hills Transportation Corridor will result in a transportation system which
has the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic volume associated
with anticipated future development; and
WHEREAS, implementation of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corri-
dor will help to relieve congestion on the existing transportation system;
and
WHEREAS, future state and federal revenue are projected to be inade-
quate to construct said 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. 86-4 of the City of Costa Mesa provides for
establishment of major thoroughfares and bridge construction fees to be
paid by building permit applicants in the City of Costa Mesa; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on possible adoption of the
fee program was given to all property owners as provided in Ordinance
No. 86-4; and
WHEREAS, the property owners within the area of benefit did not file
a majority written protest to the establishment of the San Joaquin Hills
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 associ-
ated with the adoption of the major thoroughfare and bridge fee program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The boundaries of the area of benefit shall be as des-
cribed in the document dated July, 1985, entitled, "Major Thoroughfare and
Bridge Fee Program for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and
Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors" ("Program") attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION 2. The estimated cost of this major thoroughfare and bridges
are as follows:
San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor: $341,660,000.00. The
Program is presently designed to collect 48.4 percent of the cost of
construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor.
SECTION 3. The fees for development within the areas of benefit are
based on the 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 nonresidential 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 Con-
struction Cost Index, 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 building 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
inane less than 80 percent of the median inane for those time periods and
subject to those terns 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 San Joaquin Hills 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
Agency created by said Agreement pursuant to the terns 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 San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency, which decision shall
be final.
SECTION 7. This Resolution shall be effective upon the effective date
of Ordinance No. 86-4, establishing the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee
Program.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of February, 1986.
Mayo of the City of_ Mesa
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the City of Cos Mesa
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and fore-
going Resolution No. 86-8 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of
February, 1986.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal
of the City of Costa Mesa this 4th day of February, 1986.
City Clerk and ex -officio Cle c of the
City Council of the City of to Mesa
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE
�-�
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
Cl
Prepared by
Environmental Management Agency
Transportation/Flood Control Program Office
JULY 1985
� rt
(D r• H
O co
N a H
H
rOn -
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM
A ' 9
FOR
P 00
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
AND
FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
Cl
Prepared by
Environmental Management Agency
Transportation/Flood Control Program Office
JULY 1985
C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
TITLE
PAGE
Executive Summary
1
I
Background
3
II
Description of Corridor
4
III
Corridor Planning
5
IV
Estimated Costs
6
V
Overall Financing
7
VI
Area of Benefit
g
VII
Description of Area of Benefit (AOB).
10
VIII
Fees
15
IX
Deferral of Fees
21
X
Criteria for Collection of Fees
21
XI
Development Exactions 6 Credits
21
XII
Annual Fee Adjustment
24
XIII
City Participation in Fee Program
24
DT20-4
C
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT NO.
TITLE
PAGE
I
Area of Benefit 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 Hills 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
VII
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/ETC
38
XI
Daily Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
39
LIST OF TABLFS
TABLE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
IV -1
San Joaquin Bills 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
5
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM
FOR
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS AND FOOTHILL/EASTERN
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
Executive Summary OD
I
10
co -1r
It can no longer be expected that facilities such as the San Joaquin Hills _� o
Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) and Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors
(F/ETC) can be fully funded from the traditional revenue sources used to m o�n
'
construct southern California's existing freeway network. Supplemental m
funding sources must therefore be developed if these important components of w
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, 66484.3 and California Constitution
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 within the benefit areas is expected to
account for 488 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 48 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 88 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. Adjustments 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 were combined into three
general land use categories (2 residential and 1 non-residential) for the
purposes of applying fees to development projects.
-1-
-2-
Fees for each of the fee zones within the areas of benefit are:
SJHTC Single Family Multi -Unit Non -Residential
Residential Residential
Zone A $1,305/unit $760/unit $1.75/sf.
Zone B $1,010/unit $590/unit $1.30/sf.
ro�
rt
F/ETC
iD Y• H
ON
O y
Zone A $1,295/unit $755/unit $1.80/sf.
r0„ =
Zone B $ 920/unit $535/unit $1.05/sf.
A CO
Developers who are required to construct portions of the transportation
corridors will receive credit for that work toward the payment of their fees.
co
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 be 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%.
which are exempt from payment of property taxes will generally be
Governmental owned and constructed
CProperties
+ exempt from payment of corridor fees.
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/EPC. 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
County cooperation is not only required in
differing jurisdictions. City and
collection of fees, but should extend to
the adoption of a program and
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-
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM
FOR
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS AND FOOTHILL/EASTERN
TRANSPORTATION 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 Board of Supervisors, by Resolution 82-598,
directed the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) to begin analyzing
potential areas of benefit as an adjunct to the Orange County/Orange
County Transportation Commission - Transportation Finance Study and to
proceed with the establishment of a fee program. The Board, 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, EMA submitted a report on the Transportation
Corridor Fee Programs to the Board of Supervisors for referral to the
Planning Commission for recommendations. Public meetings were subse-
quently held by the Planning Commission on October 11 and November 1, 1983
to consider the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Programs.
On January 30, 1984 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 45-83
recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt Major Thoroughfare and
Bridge Fee Programs for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and
the Foothill/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 Hills and
Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors. Subsequent cooperative
analysis of the fee program by Orange County, Orange County Transportation
-3-
Transportation corridors are depicted on the MPAH map as either concept-
ually proposeA 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 CORRIDOR 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 MPRH which includes the Corona del Mar Freeway (Route 73) in the
Cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Irvine and extends southeasterly
approximately 15 miles to join the San Diego Freeway (I-5) 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 countywide 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 FOOTHILL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR is an
-4-
Commission, Building 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
m r•r
projected volumes exceed major arterial highway capacities. These routes
co o
y
will function similarly to freeways and expressways and should eventually
o
M
_
be incorporated into the freeway and expressway system. They are,
therefore, designed to meet minimum State and Federal standards.
a,•
�c
rn
The relatively rapid growth and planned future development in Orange
County is contributing directly to the need for major transportation
corridors. Three such corridors (Foothill, Eastern and San Joaquin Hills)
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 MPAH map as either concept-
ually proposeA 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 CORRIDOR 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 MPRH which includes the Corona del Mar Freeway (Route 73) in the
Cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Irvine and extends southeasterly
approximately 15 miles to join the San Diego Freeway (I-5) 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 countywide 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 FOOTHILL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR is an
-4-
established alignment between the Eastern Corridor and a point northerly
of Ortega Highway and a conceptual alignment between that point and San
Diego Freeway (1-5). As depicted on Exhibit I, the Eastern Transportation
Corridor will intersect the Riverside Freeway (Route 91) between Weir
Canyon Road and Gypsum Canyon Road extending southeasterly approx. 13
miles to a point southerly of the Santa Ana Freeway (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
00
Freeway (I-5) below San Clemente in San Diego County. It is anticipated,D
the Eastern corridor will be a landscaped, grade separated scenic corridor
00 �
which includes approximately six general purpose travel lanes and the
o
Corridor, a landscaped corridor which includes four to six
H
Foothill
general purpose travel lanes with medians or other areas wide enough to
c
�'2
accommodate HOV/Special Transit requirements if necessary. Access to the
a,
corridor will be limited to grade -separated interchanges with arterial
' w
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
C 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 Hills
Transportation Corridor and the central segments of the Foothill/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 May 25, 1983. More detailed
engineering work is currently underway on the San Joaquin 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 between
about Oso Parkway and I-5.
It is proposed that all corridors will eventually be added to the State
Highway System. State legislation (AB 86) has been signed into law which
redescribes State Route 73 (Corona Del Mar Freeway) to include the San
Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor.
-5-
Construction: $259,736,000
Engineering 6 Admin.: 38,960,000
Contingencies: 25,974,000
Right Of Way (in excess
of Major Arterial Hwy.): 16,990,000
Total (for purposes
of Fee Program): $341,660,000
-6-
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The construction costs within this report include estimates for all
corridor grading and general travel lane improvements including bridges,
landscaping, and arterial
structural section, interchanges, partial
dictated by the corridor alignments. The cost of
highway realignments
grading general High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes is included but not the
cost of HOV structural section, bridges, median barriers or special access
It is intended that implementation of any transit guideway or HOV
ramps.
facilities, if needed, would be provided from other funding sources.
w
Other costs included for both Corridors includes engineering design,
�.
administration, construction inspection and right-of-way acquisition
costs.
o
"
y
It is proposed that developers will dedicate the majority of right-of-way
.
for the transportation corridors. The cost estimate includes a cost for
,P oo
P °i
the portion of the right-of-way which would exceed a standard major
00
highway constructed along the corridor alignment excluding slope
arterial
easements. The portion of right-of-way equivalent to a major arterial
highway is excluded from the estimate to maintain a poricy consistent with
is
other arterial highway dedications. The cost of slope easements
the natural terrain condi-
excluded because of the wide variations between
of adjacent lands, the inability to estimate
tions and final development
certainty, and for consistency with existing
the easement areas with
development policy. Right-of-way required to realign any inter-
arterial
secting arterial highway was also excluded from the cost estimate on the
C assumption that it will be dedicated in accordance with established
the
development policy. The right-of-way to be included as part of
corridor cost was assumed to have a value of $50,000/acre.
A. SAN JOAQUIN 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: $259,736,000
Engineering 6 Admin.: 38,960,000
Contingencies: 25,974,000
Right Of Way (in excess
of Major Arterial Hwy.): 16,990,000
Total (for purposes
of Fee Program): $341,660,000
-6-
B. FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS (?/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
Construction: $233,557,000
Eng. & Admin.: 35,033,000
Contingencies: 35,033,000
Right Of Way
(in excess of
Major Art. Hwy.): 14,151,000
Total (for purposes
of Fee Program): $317,774,000
CV. OVERALL FINANCING
Eastern
$143,526,000
21,528,500
21,528,500
11.790.000
$198,373,000
Total
$377,083,000
56,561,500
56,561,500
25,941,000
$516,147,000
The Board of Supervisors has established a transportation corridor
development policy (Exhibit II) which defines the corridor implementation
obligations of land development projects, and as noted in Section I of
this 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 Freeway) 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-
10 c
co -It
•w
o
H �
M 0
H -J
In accordance with current Board of Supervisors' policy, new developments
within the path 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/W 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.
VI. AREA OF BENEFIT
In order to establish an MTSB fee program, an Area of Benefit (AOB) 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, therefore, 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-
The statutes identified in Section I of this report which authorize the
of development fees specify that an Area of Benefit (AOB) shall
collection
be established which encompasses real property, which will benefit from
bridges. The method of
construction of the major thoroughfares and
the share of total corridor costs proposed to be
determining the AOB and
paid by new development in the form of fees is explained in Sections vi
�ro
and VIII of this report.
estimated corridor costs and the portions proposed to be allocated to
roThe
2 n
development through the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge (MT6B) fee
(D w H
new
0 co
program are:
r
tv H
-
New Development
r -n >
Approximate
,r� co
Total Cost Share of Cost E
'C' rn
I
00
San Joaquin Hills: $341,660,000 $165,500,104 48.48
Foothill/Eastern: $516,147,000 $250,228,066 48.58
In accordance with current Board of Supervisors' policy, new developments
within the path 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/W 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.
VI. AREA OF BENEFIT
In order to establish an MTSB fee program, an Area of Benefit (AOB) 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, therefore, 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, will 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 trips 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 trip -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 III and
IV).
The influence area for each of the corridors is quite pronounced at the 4%
and greater trip use level as shown on the exhibits. The pattern of
corridor usage becomes erratic below the 49 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:
1UTPS 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-
TABLE VII -1
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS AOB BY LOCAL JURISDICTION
City
1. Corridor trip ends exceed 1.75 trip ends per gross acre of the TAZ.
Costa Mesa
2. Total corridor trip ends per TAZ exceed 2,000.
Irvine
3. Trip end growth within each TAZ exceeds 458.
Laguna Beach
4. Perceived direct and indirect benefits to the transportation system.
Newport Beach
identifiable physical and planned features closely approximating the
San Clemente
pattern of corridor usage were used to describe the boundaries of the
San Juan Capistrano
benefit areas.
Santa Ana
Within each area of benefit, some lands were judged to receive more
Within
(D
m
o
benefit than others from the construction of the corridors. Developments
y
which create relatively high demands for use of the corridors were placed
o
09
in a different fee zone within the area of benefit than other developments
with less direct use. The boundaries between the fee zones were
A
determined utilizing the TAZ data on Exhibits III and IV. Traffic
analysis zones where the percentage of corridor trip ends equals or
exceeds 8% were defined as Zone A. Traffic analysis zones with less than
88 use were defined as Zone B. Zone A and B are depicted on Exhibit I.
VII. DESCRIPTION OF AREA OF BENEFIT (A0B)
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.
rj A. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION 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:
TABLE VII -1
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS AOB BY LOCAL JURISDICTION
City
Area Included in AOB
Costa Mesa
3.2 sq. miles
Irvine
22'2
Laguna Beach
5.6
Newport Beach
8.3
San Clemente
3.8
San Juan Capistrano
8.2
Santa Ana
2.8
City Subtotal
54.1
Unincorporated Territory
68.3
Total
122.4 sq. miles
-10-
C.
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 F01) enters said Upper Newport Bay; thence
along the centerline of Santa Ana -Delhi Channel from Upper Newport Bay
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 Freeway to
Harbor Blvd.; thence northerly along the centerline of said Harbor
Blvd. to MacArthur Blvd.; thence easterly along the centerline of said
MacArthur Blvd. to Main Street; thence northerly along the centerline
of said Main 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
Freeway (State Route 55); thence southwesterly along the centerline of
said Newport -Costa Mesa Freeway to Warner Avenue; thence southeasterly
along the centerline of said Warner 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 Freeway; thence southwesterly along the
centerline of said Newport -Costa Mesa Freeway to the San Diego Freeway
(Interstate 405); thence 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 Mission 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 of Parcel Map 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; the southerly
its proposed
along the centerline of said La Novia Avenue and
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. 11832 to the northerly boundary
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-
co
m a
�+
o
an o�
prolongation to the Pacific Ocean.
-12-
Capistrano; thence southeasterly along said city external boundary
1961 and annexation
defined by Incorporation boundaries of April 19,
City resolution 62-11-13-2 to
nos. 105 and 24 and deannexation per
along the centerline of said
Interstate 5; thence southerly
5 to its intersection with the Orange/San Diego County
Interstate
line; and thence southerly along said County line to the Pacific
Ocean.
Zone A
n
m
Zone A is bounded on the south by the Pacific Ocean and is described
W
as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the total area of
said
benefit westerly boundary with the Pacific Ocean; thence along
thence northerly
o =
rn• �_
total area of benefit boundary to Marguerite Avenue;
San Joaquin Hills
a, co
�rn
along the centerline of said Marguerite Avenue to
line of said San Joaquin Hills
�
Road; thence easterly along the center
Hill Road; thence northerly along the centerline of
Road to Spyglass
said Spyglass Hill Road to San Miguel Drive; thence northerly along
the centerline of said San Miguel Drive to Ford Road; thence
its
northeasterly along the centerline of said Ford Road and proposed
County Master Plan of
northeasterly extension as shown on the Orange
8, 1984, to Bonita Canyon Road; thence
Arterial Highways dated August
the center line of said Bonita Canyon Road to the
easterly along
proposed southerly extension of Sand Canyon Avenue as shown on said
the centerline
Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence easterly along
of Sand Canyon Avenue to the westerly
of the proposed extension
of Bake Parkway as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial
C
extension
Highways; thence easterly along the centerline of the proposed
Canyon Road; thence southerly
extension of said Bake Parkway to Laguna
Road to the proposed
along the centerline of said Laguna Canyon
of Santa Maria Avenue as shown on said Master Plan
westerly extension
of Arterial Highways; thence easterly along the centerline of the
proposed extension of Santa Maria Avenue and Santa Maria Avenue to
of said Moulton
Moulton Parkway; thence southerly along the centerline
E1 Toro Road, thence northeasterly along the centerline of
Parkway to
said El Toro Road to Paseo de Valencia; thence southeasterly along the
centerline of said Paseo de Valencia and its easterly prolongation to
the
intersect Interstate 5 which is also the easterly boundary of
along said easterly boundary
total area of benefit; thence southerly
area of benefit boundary to where it again intersects
of the total
Interstate 5 in the vicinity of Camino Las Ramblas; thence northerly
along the centerline of said Interstate 5 to San Juan Creek Road;
Creek Road to
thence westerly along the centerline of said San Juan
along the centerline of said
Camino Capistrano; thence northerly
Camino Capistrano to Del Obispo Street; thence westerly along the
centerline of said Del Obispo Street to Alipaz Street; thence
Camino Del
southerly along the centerline of said Alipaz Street to
of said Camino.Del Avion
Avion; thence westerly along the centerline
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. 00
A more detailed map of the Foothill/Eastern Corridors AOB is shown on eco
Exhibit VI. This AOB contains approximately 291 square miles. All or w
portions of the following cities are included in this AOB: 0
r
r -i C r+
TABLE VII -2 m o
FOOTHILL/EASTERN AOB BY LOCAL JURISDICTION
�a
City Area Included in AOB
Anaheim
14.1 sq. miles
Irvine
18.9
Orange
10.6
San Clemente
13.5
San Juan Capistrano
5.0
Santa Ana
2.8
Tustin
11.1
Villa Park
2.1
Yorba Linda
17.7
City Subtotal
95.8
Unincorporated Territory
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-
of the Oak Hills Ranch as shown in said Record of Survey 2-5; thence
C' 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 shown 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 the centerline of
said proposed extension and Avery Parkway to the Santa Ana Freeway
-14-
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
Corridor Area of Benefit.
rTransportation
m
ZONE A
r 7 ry
00 y
0 ,
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
C' 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 shown 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 the 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 AOBsj 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 Fee 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 i B
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.
''Caltrans, LARTS 1976 Urban Rural Survey.
-15-
x
10c
co-zr
%C 0
H C r -I
m 0
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 (E) Share ($)
SJHTC
Zone A 28.6E $ 97,856,775
Zone B 19.8E $ 67,643,330
Total $341,660,000 48.4E $165,500,104
F/ETC
Zone A 25.8E $133,096,091
Zone B 22.7E $117,131,975
Total $516,147,000 48.5E $250,228,066
B. Determination of Base Fee
C. r The cost attributable to future development must be reduced to a fee
�s so that it may be apportioned in an equitable manner to specific types
of development. Allocation of the cost on the basis of trip end
generation by general land use category is proposed, where:
cost apportioned to future development in the AOB zone _
cost/trip end trip end growth in the AOS zone
SJHTC F/ETC
Zone A
$97,856,775 $133,096,091 $80/TE 1,321,160 $74/TE 1,665,922
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 trip 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 MMTS II4 employment projections.
( 4Employment projects adopted by the Orange County Transportation Commission.
-16-
10c
00 -IT
• w
O
F o
m O N
H —4 N
.7 as
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 aummation of more
specific non-residential categories such as manufacturing, retail
regional, neighborhood/community commercial, and office uses. The
trip 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 fropi 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, 608 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 trip 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
139,368
254,936
Multi -Unit Residential Units
193,956
285,053
240,723
440,312
Neighborhood/Community Commercial
448,800
179,520
525,262
210,105
FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
Single Family Residential Units
666,024
897,960
643,812
1,143,880
Multi -Unit Residential Units
160,377
216,238
248,906
442,221
Neighborhood/Community Commercial
479,662
191,865
1,155,638
462,255
-17-
co
�0'r
00 zr
rL . W
O
H �
0] O ro
H -. N
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
(D w H
o M
FEE PROGRAM SHARE BY LAND USE CATEGORY
N
� y
Single Family Multi -Unit
Total
Residential Residential Non -Residential Developer's Share
,P co
,P m
i
co
SAN JOAQUIN BILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Zone A $41,264,990 $21,093,922 $35,497,862
$ 97,856,774
Zone B $11,7270056 $20,254,352 $35,661,922
$ 67,643,330
FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS
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
COnce
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 VIII -4
AREA OF BENEFIT FEES
Fee
Rounded
Land Use Calculation
Fee Fee
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Zone A
Single-family residential $41,264,990 * 31,621 units
$1,305/unit $1,305/unit
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
$1.30/sf
Non-residential $35,661,922 * 27,700,559 sf
$1.29/sf
-18-
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 be 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-
Fee
Rounded
Land Use
Calculation
Fee
Fee
FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Zone A
Single-family residential
$71,836,800 t
55,502 units
$1,294/unit
$1,295/unit
Multi -unit residential
$17,299,040 s
22,911 units
$755/unit
$755/unit
Non-residential
$43,960,251 r
24,231,767 sf
$1.81/sf
$1.80/sf
Zone B
Single-family residential
$49,186,840 s
53,651 units
$917/unit
$920/unit
Multi -unit residential
$19,015,503 t
35,558 units
$535/unit
$535/unit
Non-residential
$48,929,632 t
46,616,669 fees
$1.05/sf
$1.05/sf
D. APPLICATION OF FEES
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 be 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-
San Joaquin Bills AOB (Zone A):
(100 D.U. x $1305/D.U.) _ $ 130,500
(300 D.U. x $760/D.U.) _ $ 228,000
C', (25,000 S.F. x $1.75/S.F.) _ $ 43,750
Total fee for development if located in
Zone A of SJBTC AOB = $ 402,250
Foothill/Eastern AOB (Zone B):
(100 D.U. x 920/D.U.) _ $ 92,000
(300 D.O. x $535/D.U.) _ $ 160,500
(25,000 S.F. x $1.05/S.F.) _ $ 26,250
Total fee for development if located in
Zone B of Foothill/Eastern AOB = $ 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 Bills AOB (Zone B):
(5,000 s.f. x $1.30/s.f.)
Total fee for development if located in
Zone A of SJBTC AOB =
-20-
$ 6,500
$ 6,500
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
y
expansion of an existing use, the fee shall be determined based upon
the net increase of building area.
o'er
All disputes over application of fees to specific projects or disputes
y
over exemptions of projects from fee requirements shall be presented
I&-.
to the Joint Powers Agency described in Section XIII of this report
o =
r
for resolution.
�w
.a m
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 Bills AOB (Zone A):
(100 D.U. x $1305/D.U.) _ $ 130,500
(300 D.U. x $760/D.U.) _ $ 228,000
C', (25,000 S.F. x $1.75/S.F.) _ $ 43,750
Total fee for development if located in
Zone A of SJBTC AOB = $ 402,250
Foothill/Eastern AOB (Zone B):
(100 D.U. x 920/D.U.) _ $ 92,000
(300 D.O. x $535/D.U.) _ $ 160,500
(25,000 S.F. x $1.05/S.F.) _ $ 26,250
Total fee for development if located in
Zone B of Foothill/Eastern AOB = $ 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 Bills AOB (Zone B):
(5,000 s.f. x $1.30/s.f.)
Total fee for development if located in
Zone A of SJBTC AOB =
-20-
$ 6,500
$ 6,500
A
Foothill/Eastern AOB (Zone A):
(5,000 s.f. x $1.80/s.f.) _ $ 91000
Total fee for development if located in
Zone A of Foothill/Eastern AOB $ 9,000
IX. DEFERRAL OF FEES 00
10 e
It is proposed that fees may be deferred for residential multi -unit rental 00'r
projects or projects which include State or Federal requirements to provide o
units affordable to families with incomes less than 80% of the median income F ,n
(Section VIII housing). The deferral may be for a period of five years fromo `1'
the issuance of building permits or the period of the State/Federal funding
requirements beginning upon issuance of the first building permit. The fees w
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 i 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 Map and
rough grading plans.
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
-21-
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-
(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
O
payment of the MT&B fees to the extent that the costs are included in
ro
development of the fee program. Whenever subdivisions are conditioned to
(o rt
grade or improve portions of transportation corridors or dedicate right -
(D r• r
o w
of -way in excess of Major Arterial Highway Standards, and these costs
M y
exceed fees, the developer shall enter into an agreement prior to
recordation of final tract or parcel maps to identify the difference in
0
the dollar amount between the estimated costs of the grading,
rn
improvements, and/or right-of-way, and the calculated fees. Such
0o
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, qnd/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
of the transportation corridors or dedicate
construct or grade portions
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-
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 Credit Rate
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Jamboree to Station 511+50 $149,784 per acre road easement
Station 511+50 to Moulton Parkway $124,132 per acre road easement
Moulton Parkway to Paseo de Colinas $124,915 per acre road easement
FOOTHILL/EA.STERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Foothill/Eastern Corridor $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 158 of the drainage structure
credit will be added. Contingency credit of 108 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.
5. 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-
00
1b1:V
co -cr
• w
0
14 H r
'M O C."
H a
XRM:ltDT20-4 -24-
7/19/85
fee credits are established by an executed reimbursement agreement, no
further adjustments will be made to those credits because of revisions to
the corridor cost estimates or fee adjustments.
XII. ANNUAL FEE ADJUSTMENT
It is intended that the fee programs be submitted annually to the Hoard of
Supervisors and City Councils for fees to be automatically adjusted based
upon an approved construction cost index. Updated project cost estimates,
rt
substantial changes in general plan land use elements, or other pertinent
m r H
o
information may also be cause for adjustment by the Hoard of Supervisors
N 00
0 y
and City Councils.
o �
M >
In the event an annual evaluation of the fee programs causes fees to be
41 w
41 M
reduced for any reasons, reimbursements will not be considered for fees
C
already paid.
XIII. CITY PARTICIPATION IN FEE PROGRAM
There are twelve different cities within the proposed areas of benefit for
the Foothill/Eastern and San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridors.
Joint Powers Agencies (JPA) consisting of City and 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 Corridor and the
combined Foothill/Eastern Corridors. Fees collected by Cities and the
CF 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.
XRM:ltDT20-4 -24-
7/19/85
I-.
I
2
3
4
�
S
6
m
o w
7
o y
o�
8
'P. m
9
co
10
11
12
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
w
26
N
0
27
a 28
'RG: dh
EXHIBIT II
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
April 21, 1982
On motion of Supervisor Wieder, duly seconded and carried, the
following Resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, development of lands is occurring which contributes
directly to the need for transportation corridors; and
WHEREAS, said development may obstruct future right-of-way for
the transportation corridors; and
WHEREAS, development benefitting from implementation of the
transportation corridors should contribute -toward the cost generally
in proportion to the need generated; and
WHEREAS, right-of-way for the transportation should be protected
as development occurs; and
WHEREAS, grading should be accomplished, whenever possible, in
conjunction with the grading and development of surrounding property;
and
WHEREAS, implementation of logical increments of the corridor
should occur in conjunction with the land development process wherever
the transportation needs of that development require those Facilites
for access; and
WHEREAS, development policies for the implementation of the
transportation corridor will provide a basis for planning of future
development and serve as notice to the public as to the future
locations of the corridors;
Resolution No. 82-598
Transportation Corridors
Development Policy -26-
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12i
POW, 'tTH' .,r., ORE, BE IT RESOLVED that as a condition of approval
of subdivisions containing within their boundaries portions of
transportation corridors shown on the Transportation Element 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). Number 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 development fee program includes said right-of-way
cost.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that EMA is hereby directed to amend
appropriate sections of the Subdivision and Zoning Codes to implement
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-
i0 IV
co <r
Lw
H M
W O
H —4 N
� a
F
� rt
lD r• r -i
O W
N zi-j
O O =
n. y
,P 00
J�- rn
i
I bE IT RESOLVED that EMA is hereby directed to begin
2 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
? similar policies.
6 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that EMA is hereby directed to proceed
expeditiously with the establishment of a fee program.
B
9
10
11
12,
13
14
}
-= 15
YyY
• � Y
16
O=�
o `0 17
Y
18 AYES: SUPERVISORS E ?RIETT M. WIEDER, RALPH B. CLARK, AND ROGER R.
STANTON
19
NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE
20
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS BRUCE AIESTANDE AND THOMAS F. RILEY
21
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
22 ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
23
I. JUNE ALEXANDER, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California
24 (hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly ;pn r --t iy adopted by
the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the Z1st .�day�'of Apri ;;.
25 19 82 . and passed by a unanimous vote of said oi�ar��einbers,-present:.,:.-
c 26 IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 21st day of
g April 19 B2 c
7
S UN L XAN R ;
Clerk of'the..;Board of Supervirnrs
® _Y8_ of Orange tou ftp Californir
t.
O m
O s
J W
cr
J O
= U
Z Z
O
Q
O ~
cr
z a
Q U
y Z
Q
m
M
N
W C
2 � ani
W > >
JC
? 0
O O
0
O W
Q LL
m
ossso
O w d
z � O o b V
W e O v
O
W
J
QOM
t,
q:�
W
J
I;
all
�zT
OD�T
%L • w
c O
HE4 o
C M
ro O
H •rl �
��a
M
EXHIBIT VII
Page 1 of 2
FEE PROGRAM SHARE OF TOTAL CORRIDOR COST
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Corridor User Trips
With One or Both Ends In Zone
Trips beginning and ending in zone
(Trips due to growth)
(Total trips)
In/Out Trips
(Trips due to growth)
(Total trips)
Out/In Trips
(Trips due to growth)
(Total trips)
Trip End Analysis
(Trip ends due to growth)
(Total trip ends)
(Percent corridor TE due to growth)l
(Percent corridor users TE by Zone)2
(Percent corridor users TE due to growth)3
Outside
Zone A Zone B AOB
27,109
5,890
9,116
29,047
9,811
22,195
60,145
25,834
49,798
78,820
35,345
69,894
57,362
28,141
50,274
73,274
38,582
72,203
171,725
65,755
118,304
210,188
93,549
186,487
81.70%
70.29%
63.44%
42.88%
19.08%
38.04%
35.03%
13.41%
24.13%
1percent corridor TE due to growth a 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-
00
c�
a
r
a
m
K
K
K
e m
o
en
fn
�4
%0
C
O
N
41
y
d
N
M
.r
r
V M
C7 F
.-1
rl
N
E
in
O
in
b
r
r+
O
�
r
en
.+
gt m
wm
o
�+
m
w
o
�' ra
m
tp
to
w
d
r
et
r
to
to
a
yr
y
'a
K
e r•1 LM
e1 d r
O O O
on O en
Ln
O
Ot at r
It N rf
-
V 0% %0
mtm M
O
O .! to
a Ct V
O
omm
OttoIli
v+
14
O
,4
m-0 r
r er r
to
w
O
V
r N m
N rn t0
tp
to
m
N
O
KKy}
KKK
'C"',
fU W
Ot
Y1
to
y
Ot
!
+i C
m
t0
Il
C
,
C
-W
Ot
-W
rl
N
N
f"
to
K
K
K
O
tD b
10 O
k
K
M
N
b
O
e AO1
�
o �
a).in
s
O to
U)
ti)
to
C:
4n
• O
O
a
S
M
M %
r
too to
to
O�
rl
O
t0
%
Y
O
O
0).
N
N
m
v ,' a
to
m
to
o
.4
L.
to
w eu
o
Opt
o�
to
'
o
K
ern to
on �
,,,e C
.
tp
to
K K
N N
FW1
n
N
o
O
to
. 4
k k
k k
K
K
K
Oe1
rl
O
K
O
O
N
en do
O to
.-t M
to
a
440
t1Oo
k
toil
to
to W
en .4
O
C
.••1
M
N
tp
14
m
K
el+f
�!
.O -t
K
k
w
Aj
=
m
yW
�+w
1mi 41K
'
!
k
w C
W G
dp
4p
Opt
'^
tm0
d
g
�
U
41
A 41
AJ
0
tt
to
1n
m
A
Pt
rl
!0
.4
V
4
M
di
(� �1
4 8
LA
V
W
C
t+ N
-+
C
�
U�
M
VcfQN
CH
)
Q64
41
p8
L.4154
U
e�
RI
•'
°►+'
epo
+'p4
a
to
peo
b
N
et
m
O
Q
.i
N
N1
d'
to
t0
p
«
-34-
00
c�
E(HIBIT VIII
Page 1 of 2
FEE PROGRAM SHARE OF TOTAL CORRIDOR COST
FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
Corridor User Trios with One or Both Ends In Zone
Trips beginning and ending in zone
(Trips due to growth)
(Total trips)
In/Out Trips
(Trips due to growth)
(Total trips)
Out/In Trips
(Trips due to growth)
(Total trips)
Trip End Analysis
(Trip ends due to growth)
(Total trip ends)
(Percent corridor TE due to growth)l
(Percent corridor users TE by Zone)2
(Percent corridor users TE due to growth)3
Outside
Zone A Zone B AOB
27,922
9,322
20,555
28,200
11,657
37,307
68,629
31,320
64,217
80,763
46,004
88,512
75,449
33,648
55,069
89,823
45,760
79,696
199,922
83,612
160,396
226,986
115,078
242,822
88.089
72.668
66.058
38.819
19.688
41.528
34.188
14.308
27.428
'Percent 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
-35-
OD
a;
e
a,
O
M
r
m
V'
U1
N
V}
V}
C 0
N
.-1
M
M
N
M
W1
C
01
r
10
u ar
Wi
o
10
s W
10
M
01
V M
C7 H
.-4
N
-W
0
.d
N
w.
01
r
b
C
01
O
yN
10
01
rl
M
m
N
C
O
N
u
y
M
r
O
a s
d
M
^a
to
H
N
N
V),
n-W11
M N v 1
w
O
.4r0%
10-ro
onr
W1Iw
10
o
V; O10
M m. 4
m
H
.- I m m
N O M
N
F
10 w 0
O :
N
H 4,
e
N
b
ru1M
NN n
O
r
r
e
o N M
IF r .4
In
o
m
m
W4 y v4
N W► N
N
d
10
C
CD
.-I
W1
10
A
A
MS
C
�Q
X a ai Z
H
N
f-
01
w
w
01 '.
10
1O of
N
4&
W)
W)
N
N
to
of
W F
o
qr
X 1 0
k 9 0
0
�j
10n
.NI
01
0 10 4
010 .0
o
ai
N
m
OaN
OaW'1
a
a
1„1
n
M
O
M
r"
10
':
rm
r: C;
E
01
+'
.a
b
O
In
N
.-I
O
N
r
01
.r m
rl U1
-W m
-1 In
p
4
p1
e1
ai
o
u1
10P
10r
6"
yW
N
M
01
v
O
rl
V).
a
14 d
e
�
o
r
in 41j,
&M VV-
G
c
K•
x•
o0
0
kn
0
10
w
h+
yr
Ws
Vt
O
.4
In
C
O)
N
w w
m .'i
'p0
O 01
r4
y
r
N
m
N
.-1 r 1
M m
p
4
.!
N
J!
rl
K
N
O
V 1D
w M
O
C
C
u1
M N
.r r
F
10
`4
wO
m
In
N
Ws0
t
ar
mt
W�
C4
y
K.4
..
s
0
d
+
m
p=
K
w
as
+�+
044 C
+ay)
IS4
O
o
do
,dp
M
C m
C
d
CCD
CDD
OBD
.4
t0
4
1-1
M
V
Y
41en
(1
M
V
4 al
ul
0
14
4
10
E
W
4 Q1
U~
V
4
C
R1
0I O N
VI C1 M
4
+'ji
w8
F
>
44)
M
+pj
a7
$4
10
w
C
C
N�,,
yN
O
[3
o
Cp
�bj
p
.
N
w �+
N
N
-36-
OD
!01 Nin &m r- 0l CO Mr•1 CPI N0 M O N
r4 co r- el Nm1n 10 N.4.410 r4 01 M
10 M OM 10l 1e1 M PO MN! O M b
m .+e 1410(400 01 or,r4mmN m !
d .-1 M O N 1n N0 M! 10 01 N 0110 V'
Gp 1` m N 01 1� 14 N N to .-1 It 10
W 10 u1 u1 a r rd r
N 10
N K
r•imm0Oh 1n N 10N 000 O in r♦
NO 1000 r4m V1 U1010010 1p P
10P r♦OOO-i It 01Ili
mIli
1n rd 1l !
f"N tn10mfori a M10!mto t4 10
d MN N01,w P.m 01 InPl10 N 1n
L' 10!!MO M r•1 !�-1 M m
tOJ 1n .-i ! co O r4 r pi
N 01
y H N M 04
N
y qr %D
a
a tl y
M
C� Z
AA
O1
4po1Al +�/i Mei
E 4 U V A r b
M��y11 .•. ij M O N
ow 0
E to 1'� WAj b� R4 )p •4 4 N t?
14
CU Mv7tAN.. a toow U p1�1 pp11��
Im to +viD 1p p! N ytT .04 .e m
4 \ Y aEDEl
VpU14E-4 Ac to W M
\
•+ iJ L .
.F1 O
Ll
EOE IM
Civ H
n°a w O C-3%D
e G -i 4 C .. Lno E a UU M!
H v 8 d 1p .. O v O
G r-1 r•1 O q0q .7 'J .-1 r•1 O 4 •.•1 ,-i r•1 14
to w
~ •.C•1 r•1 ~ 01 C M h, y Iyp' D V b v N 'O .0 E Q QO t t
� r♦ G7 Ws= 4 T@ C 4 it M C 4 0 C Gi C 4 O1 J] 1- M
►C+ d M �aO O E E+�+aO w �+ C� 10ei
U' �-f U' d 0 1 1\ pa 4 N U 1 1\ E C ++ Ln -W
r�•1 •.a+ W M M V .i `�••� r W ..moi •.moi If 1-4 S +i _ C m 10
cU� �/eo+i10 voAro•r
aUi 107E AI4 �OGaOF � ���o4c�0 ° � a � a �•mir
� 4
a a 04 E1 z 4
-37-
.•i
N
1
O
E
Q
00
00 <r
N d'
44O
H C d'
co Q
- P
If fa
Y1NNM 01
NbNbOIr
.-1
U1
N_
NN
%D em Ob
.-100%0 en r-
fn
r
b-1
r.-1 Pfl rb
f00/f.1 ItItP1
r
01
N1
Al U1
v N m
0/ N U,
P1 in
f+1 00 -0 N N in
�r m01 bN
m
.-1
PI
C
W,
f C 1f1 : I
.•i rl P9
r eel
LLLO�IIJ
f+1 f+1 rl r b
94
r
.-f .-I
N
N
F.
N.4 fA f101r to l -0r 0-0N M1 N d
O...v
I 01 r Pl bb Nr .-4-WbO N 01
tl101 0/mbNr Of+1 at
01br/ A O
In fV 0 COb N r1 b o b 01 01 f" N 10
fA fV f0 01 01 0 4" b b r r r O b 01
It A wN
.-f N fn
H N Qf a
M M
0 M
f0 IF
4 b
O f4
o ww
Y O M .4
61
a U
-rad
.r .. ai
Aj AJ co OD
01
_ a i -+
N
S p ��jjl �I 9 Y N N
so
D Of EAi $4\\ b JJ +�-I
v �fpp �fpp C
.Ci apl Aj W y y v w w\ F C o1 r
fi0.4
OS C 'M7O tri►Y•J1 Y tl.I
.d f NO �U r7 CiInc
*00 E 0 O w +Q Y E O b r
DC R 8 8 Jr•'
O Y .f If4 If
A .•I A "-\ C� '•1 Y � y Y N Y 01 r
.0 .4 -Y+'f aU CI Y w M +i a fll L fD O 01
u 14 A
O Y y0G►70 EEIlow I w C +' c"
A c�� U i i\af Y N U i q E e
.�....4 U .-I D v v Iw --4 ...4 � .•I '+ a P1 r
10
CIO, mo us
+f 31 v
.�- .N.
Pf A. Oil E Z 4 w
-38-
.4
N
1
O
H
D
l0C
00IT
apo
H O N
CO O
H •J
�� a
EXHIBIT XI
Page 1 of 2
DAILY VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION 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/Rsf• 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/Xaf
TE/Acre
TE/Other
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial/Industrial Park
13
176
Warehouse
5
62
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family Detached
12 TE/Du
Single Family Detached -Estate
15 TE/Du
Multiple Unit (Apartments, Condos)
7 TE/Du
Mobile Home
5 TE/Du
Retirement Community
4 TE/Du
LODGING
Hotel
10 TE/Roam
Motel
9 TE/Roam
Resort Hotel (TRC Use)
300
18 TE/Roam
RECREATIONAL
Neighborhood Park
6
Regional Park
5
State Park
1
Marina
4 TE/Berth
Beach
350 TE/1000' Shore
Golf Course
g
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-
co
I
io c
co -It
�o
M
HC d'
m O
H• I N
KRS:desDT20-22 -40-
6/11/85
EXHIBIT XI
Page 2 of 2
1
Land Use TE/Ksf
TE/Acre
TE/Other
MEDICAL
Hospital
18
200
14 TE/Bed
Nursing Home
3 TE/Bed
OFFICE
a c
m
General.Office
15
.75
240
o y
Medical Office
�
Research Center
10
40
o _
M
,c oc -
RETAIL
�rn
i
Discount Store
65
Hardware/Rome 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
750 TS/Station
Service Station
Supermarket
125
Convenience Market (i.e., 7-11,
550
Stop i 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