No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutD-1 - San Joaquin Hilla Transportation CorridorC TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR November 12, 1985 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. D-1 BY THE CIT7 COUNCIL CITY OF NEWPORT REACH, NOV 12 1905 RECOMMENDATIONS: (,It Z, r, - 11 2-1 Hold hearing, close hearing; if desired: 1. ACCEPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; FIND THAT AN INITIAL STUDY AND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAVE BEEN PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND FIND THAT THEIR CONTENTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE DECISIONS ON THE PROJECT. 2. ADOPT A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM ORDINANCE. 3. ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A FEE PROGRAM AND AREAS OF BENEFIT FOR THE SAN--JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR; TO.BE EFFECTIVE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM ORDINANCE. 4. APPROVE A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY, AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT; TO BE EFFECTIVE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM ORDINANCE. 5. RATIFY MAYOR MAURER'S APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER TO SERVE AS THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE ON HE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY. I. Introduction and Histor In the early 1970's, after deletion of the Pacific Coast Freeway, it became apparent that the traffic circulation system parallel to the coast in southeast Orange County was seriously deficient. The County of Orange, with input from Newport Beach and other cities in the area, undertook the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study (SEOCCS). This study was a comprehensive transportation and land use study for the southeast portion of the County. In 1976 SEOCCS was culminated by the addition of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) to the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways and to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. In 1979 a specific route was selected for the SJHTC from an evaluation of alternative routes assessed in an E.I.R. In 1983 the State of California added the SJHTC to the State Highway System as an extension of Route 73. November 12, 1985 Subject: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Page 2 Over the last 10 years, numerous public meetings, informational pre - sentations, and hearings concerning the SJHTC have been conducted by the county of Orange and by Newport Beach and other affected cities. The Corridor has been generally supported because of its beneficial impacts on traffic service, with resulting reductions in projected congestion on elements of the arterial highway system and related local streets. There has been controversy,.however, over various design features of the SJHTC, with the nature of the controversy depending on specific local interests and concerns. Concerns of interest in Newport Beach are discussed later in this report. I1. Project Description The SJHTC is being designed based on projected travel demand asso- ciated with the eventual build -out of adopted City and County Land Use Plans. The design provides for 6 - 10 general purpose lanes, truck passing lanes where long steep grades dictate, and a median which includes provisions for potential use by high occupancy vehicles. At the westerly end the Corridor would connect to the Corona del Mar Freeway segment currently being constructed by the State. At the easterly end the Corridor would connect to the San Diego Freeway near Avery Parkway in San Juan Capistrano. Interchanges (at the westerly end) are. proposed at University /MacArthur, Bison Avenue; Ford Road, Pelican:.Hill Road and San Joaquin Hills Road extension. A.map- showing the westerly end of.the Corridor, the existing and proposed arterial highway system, and the proposed interchange locations is included herein, entitled "Route 73 - -San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor." This map also shows projected year 2010 traffic volu- mes, both with and without the Corridor. It is intended by the County and the Cities that the Corridor be designed as a high - quality scenic highway, with features similar to Highway 280 on the San Francisco Peninsula. These features could include a split level roadway with landscaped medians, rounded cut and fill slopes with variable slope ratios to blend into the natural terrain, extensive landscaping, and special esthetic treatment of bridges and other structures: After construction, the Corridor would be conveyed to the State of California for operation and maintenance as a part of the State Highway System. III. Current Actions The actions before the City at this time consist of: 1. Acceptance of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the funding program actions. 2. Adoption of an enabling ordinance for a Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. 3. Adoption of a resolution establishing a fee program specifically for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. IC S�g `s N 5 rt 3 � a � Y s 2u +Ma Z • MIPy Vve a N 5 rt 3 � a � Y s 2u +Ma Z • MIPy Vve f W = / ♦e f 9 �a N U � 3 i i • ` mm • Y br � • ¢ u m `a 3" a , a f W = / ♦e f 9 �a N U � 3 �i AI 'pro :eta � ( 128/21 ""x"5/6 �O+ r: ea , 26/24 3 tJ i _�� 21/39 34/47 i-- ? 20135 I �s »... - -- l 3� i 345 29/44 [ , 1 1/ - =1 Existing Arterial Highway — ��Proposed Arterial Highway Existing Urban Development 16/19 SJHTC 2010 ADT Traffic Volumes (in 1000's) (first no, with corridor, second no. without. corridor) ®0 5000, Route 73 - San Joaquin Hills ' Transportation Corridor L4 . Public notice has been provided by advertising in the City's official paper, by posting approximately 10 intersections in the affected area, and by mailing notices to all property owners in the proposed benefit area. (Approxi- mately 6,000 notices have been mailed.) A copy of the Notice of Public Hearing is attached. V. Environmental Document A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the funding program actions has been prepared and approved by the City Environmental Affairs Committee. A copy of the Negative Declaration, together with the Environmental Checklist and the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation is attached for reference. The Environmental Document for corridor design and construction is currently being prepared by the County, and will be circulated for review and comment next year. Public hearings on this document are anticipated in mid or late 1986.. VI. City Charter Section 422 City Charter Section 422 specifies a vote of the people for the City to enter into a freeway agreement. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 422, a question has been raised regarding the ability of the City Council to par- ticipate in the Fee Program. The City Attorney has issued an opinion, based on his initial research, that the Council is empowered to adopt the Fee.Program. His reasons are summarized as follows: 1. Section 422 was not intended to affect the Corona del Mar Freeway (Route 73) as designed in 1971. 2. Any necessary authorization was granted to the Council by the 1980 election. 3. Section 422 of the Charter may be preempted by State law or otherwise invalid. 5 November 12, 1985 Subject: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Page 3 C 4. Approval of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the SJHTC Joint Powers Agency. 5. Appointment of a Council member to serve on the Board of Directors of the SJHTC Joint Powers Agency. It is emphasized that the City's actions at this time do not include approval of the Corridor design concepts currently being investigated; nor do they include any approval of the Corridor construction Environmental Document currently being prepared by the County. IV. Public Notice Public notice has been provided by advertising in the City's official paper, by posting approximately 10 intersections in the affected area, and by mailing notices to all property owners in the proposed benefit area. (Approxi- mately 6,000 notices have been mailed.) A copy of the Notice of Public Hearing is attached. V. Environmental Document A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the funding program actions has been prepared and approved by the City Environmental Affairs Committee. A copy of the Negative Declaration, together with the Environmental Checklist and the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation is attached for reference. The Environmental Document for corridor design and construction is currently being prepared by the County, and will be circulated for review and comment next year. Public hearings on this document are anticipated in mid or late 1986.. VI. City Charter Section 422 City Charter Section 422 specifies a vote of the people for the City to enter into a freeway agreement. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 422, a question has been raised regarding the ability of the City Council to par- ticipate in the Fee Program. The City Attorney has issued an opinion, based on his initial research, that the Council is empowered to adopt the Fee.Program. His reasons are summarized as follows: 1. Section 422 was not intended to affect the Corona del Mar Freeway (Route 73) as designed in 1971. 2. Any necessary authorization was granted to the Council by the 1980 election. 3. Section 422 of the Charter may be preempted by State law or otherwise invalid. 5 • & November 12, 1985 Subject: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Page 4 Copies of memoranda dated October 17, 1985 and October 25, 1985 from the City Attorney discussing the reasons for the opinion are attached for reference. VII. City Position and Current Issues Because of overall traffic benefits, particularly to Corona del Mar, the City has consistently supported the Corridor for many years. The most recent City Council action is expressed in Resolution No. 85 -11, adopted on February 25, 1985. This resolution contains both general and specific comments and concerns. A copy of the resolution is attached for" reference. A brief discussion of some of the comments follows: 1. Comments 1, 2, and 3 support early construction of the Corridor as a way of directing traffic around Newport Beach, support the concept of a devel- opment fee program, and support the proposed joint powers authority. 2. Comment 5 expresses the position that the Corridor should be designed as a scenic highway and in an environmentally sensitive manner. 3. Comments 6 and 7 specify that the connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road shall not occur until Pelican Hill Road is fully operational; that San Joaquin Hills Road should not exceed four travel lanes as it connects to Pelican Hill Road; that the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Pelican Hill Road to the Corridor shall not occur; and that there will be no Corridor interchange connection with San Miguel Drive or Ford Road. The latter two provisions regarding the elimination of the Master Plan extension of San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of future Pelican Hill Road, and the elimination of the proposed Ford Road interchange have probably consti- tuted the most significant recent issues in Newport Beach. Community Associations in the northeasterly part of the City have expressed considerable concern over potential traffic impacts of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Road extension and the proposed Ford Road interchange. Discussion of potential traffic impacts is included below under the "Traffic Service" heading. 4. Comment 11 emphasizes the need for a staged construction program which is specifically intended to minimize impacts on the existing street §ystem. 5. Comment 12 points out that additional and /or revised comments will be made as a part" of the environmental review process. b November 12, 1985 Subject: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Page 5 C 6. Comment 13 states that it is the overriding policy of the City that the integrity of the Circulation Element be maintained; that the Corridor be designed in a way which will distribute traffic to the arterial street system without exceeding the capacity of individual elements of the system; and that the design and construction phasing shall not result in traffic burdens on Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar which would cause parking to be removed. It should be noted in the context of Comment 13 that elimination of the proposed extension of San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Pelican Hill Road would significantly increase traffic volumes on Pelican Hill Road between the Corridor and San Joaquin Hills Road; and the elimination of the proposed Ford Road interchange would increase traffic volumes on MacArthur Boulevard and on Bison Avenue. (These eliminations also reduce traffic volumes on portions of Ford Road, San Miguel Drive, and San Joaquin Hills Road by approximately 1,000 vehicles per day. Again, see further discussion under "Traffic Service. ") 7. Comment 14 authorizes the Mayor to execute the original MOU, with the understanding that the City will not participate in the Corridor program unless and until the City's concerns expressed in the resolution are fully pro- tected in the joint powers agreement or otherwise. C With respect to the policy positions expressed by Newport Beach and the other cities, Section 2.2 of the Joint Powers Agreement provides (on page 7) that "Board planning policy shall respond to those memoranda of understanding and various minute orders and policy statements adopted by each party to this Agreement, attached hereto collectively as Exhibit "A" and incor- porated by reference herein." City Resolution 85 -11 would be a part of Exhibit "A ". As mentioned above, the current issue of concern to the Spyglass Hill Community Association and other community associations in the northeasterly part of the City has to do with the requested elimination of the Master Plan exten- sion of San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of future Pelican Hill Road and the eli- mination of the proposed Ford Road interchange. These eliminations are identified as "Alternative E", and discussed further under Traffic Service, below. The Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce on June 15, 1985 adopted a resolution in support of the SJHTC program. This resolution also expresses con- cern that the proposed deletion of the San Joaquin Hills Road extension, and of the Ford Road interchange had been recommended prior to an analysis of impacts; and requests the City to modify paragraphs 6 and 7 of Resolution 85 -11 accord- ingly. A copy of the Chamber resolution is attached for reference. VIII. Traffic Service Construction of the SJHTC will provide significant traffic service benefits, resulting in reduced congestion on important elements of the City's roadway system. Depending on specific location, projected traffic volumes are reduced by 15,000 vehicles per day on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar, by 6,000. to 14,000 vehicles per day on MacArthur Boulevard, and by 3,000 to 10,000 7 November 12, 1985 Subject: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Page 6 �. vehicles per day on.Jamboree Road. Also anticipated are significant reductions in "by- passing" traffic on local streets in Corona del Mar such as Poppy Avenue, Marguerite Avenue, 5th avenue, Goldenrod Avenue, Sea Lane,Harbor View Drive, and Bayside Drive. The drawing entitled "Route 73 - -San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor" shows projected year 2010 average daily traffic volumes on the arterial highway system-both with and without the SJHTC. A traffic study entitled "San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor - -West End Analysis" has been prepared by the County in association with Austin -Foust Associates. This study analyzes the effects of a number of design alternatives. A 'Base Case" year 2010 traffic volume forecast compiles the pro- jected volumes on the highway system assuming all proposed future arterial high- ways and extensions are built, and assuming all the proposed interchanges are constructed. The study then analyzes the effect on project traffic volumes of several alternatives involving the deletion of certain highway extensions and /or connections. Of particular interest to Newport Beach is Alternative E, with the Ford Road interchange deleted and the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Pelican Hill Road deleted. The - drawing entitled "Figure 6--2010 ADT Differences for Alternative E" shows the projected "Base.Case" traffic volumes on the system, with the differences due to the Alternative E deletions shown in parentheses below the Base Case volumes. Alternative E results in daily traffic C volume reductions of 1,000 vehicles per day on San Miguel and of 1,000 vehicles per day on Ford Road westerly of San Miguel. Alternative E results in daily traffic volume increases of 4,000 vehicles per day (to 57,000 vehicles per day) on MacArthur southerly of Bison (thus exceeding estimated capacity of 54,000 vehicles per day), of 3,000 vehicles per day on MacArthur northerly of Coast Highway, of 2,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day on Coast Highway westerly of MacArthur, and of 1,000 vehicles per day on San Joaquin Hills Road westerly of Spyglass Hill Road. Outside the City of Newport Beach Alternative E results in daily traffic volume increases of 13,000 vehicles per day on Pelican Hill Road southerly of the SJHTC, and of 6,000 vehicles per day on Bison easterly of MacArthur Boulevard. The planning firm of Douglas Wood & Associates, representing the Spyglass Hill Community Association, has reviewed the West End Analysis traffic study; and has expressed a number of comments in a letter to the County dated October 3, 1985. Several technical questions are raised in the letter having to do with land use forecasts, Corridor width, and directional traffic volumes. The County is reviewing these questions, and is expected to respond in the near future. Under "Response to Conclusions" the letter indicates continued support for Alternative E. A copy of the letter to the County from Douglas Wood & Associates is attached for reference, as is a copy of the West End Analysis traffic study. IX. Fee Program The proposed fee program provides for the imposition of specified fees on new development only within a defined area of benefit. Within Newport Beach the area o benel efit only generally easterly of the Upper Bay, and northerly of 8 x i . �01^bY Nv Q f r 17 a 1` 1� w ww O YI��J N W E' n C, l +ti, �• ++ �'i tl Ica M SZ ¢ 27 1 w Faa a a rte. CP xx 5 N J/ M f4 N i to 11 "lam r G O e (F 1�12r ( -1) 9l .0 w U2 Ctr -J1�L� �r ry ryy c ."•1 `E 4J J 0) CD �' 27 m m to 33 YN-4 07 b+ may' C a G OF �jJ l� �' 1 ` YD D G N 4 of r E a 5 J w N C' a o^ "� Sp 52 47 49 U 7 CS i 2 ul 5 ('2) ( -2) naowYr ( -4) °- N V w O Rp i1 m � Yoc rbs �C� mwmmo N w .i [n w m •+ v w ❑ ❑ _ 1 X T i � Svc° .... 1 O M t z Y i N jM1Abl S V O z - 0 M t fYf YIxYS p i ■ q O m.no 1° i i w o. tnobYax la 10 (� i 0 November 12, 1985 Subject: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Page 7 C Coast Highway and of 5th Avenue in Corona del Mar. A map depicting the area of benefit is shown on the "Notice of Public Hearing," together with the fee sched- ule. Zone A of the benefit area is a zone of primary benefit, with higher fees (very little of Newport Beach is in Zone A). Zone 8 is a zone of secondary benefit, with lower fees. The proposed fees are tabulated below. Single- family Residence Zone A $1,305 Zone B $1,010 Multiple Residential Unit Zone A $ 760 Zone B $ 590 All Non - Residential Buldings Zone A $1.75/sq. ft.. Zone B $1.30 /sq. ft. In general, the fees have been derived so as to be proportional to re- lative traffic volumes generated by new development. The fee program for the SJHTC is intended to provide approximately 48% of the $350 million total estimated cost. This amount is proportional to the percentage of traffic utilizing the Corridor which is generated by new development. A copy of the fee program is attached for reference. Copies of documents describing program methodology and C other detailed information are available for review by interested parties in the City Public Works Department offices, and in the Orange County EMA offices. X. Joint Powers Agency and Agreement . final design and construction of the SJHTC are intended to be accomplished by a Joint Powers Agency comprised of the County of Orange and the Cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Newport Beach, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, and Santa Ana. The City of Laguna Beach has thus far declined to participate, although there now appears to be some feeling in that community that par- ticipation could be beneficial to the interests of the City of Laguna Beach. Orange County approved the program on September 25, Costa Mesa has not yet taken action, Irvine approved the program on October 15, San Clemente approved the program on September 18, San Juan Capistrano approved the program on September 17, and Santa Ana has not yet taken action. A copy of the Joint Powers Agreement is attached for detailed reference. Principal features of the agreement are briefly summarized below: 1. Purpose and Powers. The purpose is to administer funds, plan, design, acquire, and construct the SJHTC.. Maintenance and operation are not included. The powers include generally the powers of any of the individual agencies necessary to accomplish the above purpose; such as contracting for ser- vices and construction, acquiring property, incurring debts and obligations, seeking grants, and adopting rules and regulations governing the operation of the Joint Powers Agency. a C c /o ,r,✓� -_Y r__� .• SAd JOAQUIN HILLS \s • I L AREA OF BENEFIT e ZONE lit _ J LEGEND AREA OF BENEFIT BOUNDARY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR r r FEE ZONE BOUNDARY November 12, 1985 Subject: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Page 8 2. Board of Directors. The board of directors is composed of one voting member from each of the participating cities; and two voting members from the Orange County Board of supervisors (to be the representatives from the Third and Fifth Supervisorial Districts), or their alternates. Ex- officio members . shall represent the California Department of Transportation and the Orange County Transportation Commission. 3. Additional Officers and Em to ees. Subject to the approval of not less than two-thirds (2/3) o its mem ers, the Board may appoint additional offi- cers and may employ employees. 4. Fee Program. Each participant agrees to establish a developer fee program. The Board shall review the fee program at least once annually; and may, subject to approval of two- thirds of its members, modify the fee to be imposed by the parties. 5. Other Fee A encies. Should other major thoroughfare and bridge fee agencies be forme the boar is authorized to enter into agreements for joint planning and implementation; and to lend and borrow funds between agencies. 6. Audit. The records and accounts of the Agency shall be audited annually by an in ependent certified public accountant. Copies of the audit report shall be filed with the parties, with the County Auditor, and with the State Controller. 7. Securities. Individual parties, or the Agency, may utilize bond financing of themes Please refer to the agreement for limitations on this power. 8. Liabilities. The liabilities of the Agency shall not be liabili- ties of the individual parties, except as may be expressly provided for in the agreement. 9. Admission and Withdrawal of Parties. Detailed provisions for admission and withdrawal of parties are prove a in the agreement. 10. Termination. Termination may be accomplished by written consent of all the parties; or may occur upon the withdrawal of a sufficient number of parties to leave less than five remaining parties; or shall occur upon con- veyance of the Corridor facilities to the State. 11. Amendments. The agreement may be amended with the approval of not less than three- o(3/4) of all members. 12. Arbitration. Provision .is incorporated for arbitration of disputes. IZ C November 12, 1985 Subject: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Page 9 XI. Future Actions The Environmental Document for the project is currently under prepara- tion by the County, and should be circulated for review and comment next year. Public hearings by the County would then follow. Detailed review by the City of phasing, design, and environmental considerations would be a part of this pro- cess. It is anticipated that the City Council would wish to hold a public hearing to establish an updated official City position on the.project. Among the possible actions which could be taken by the City should the SJHTC become a reality would be the downgrading of the future easterly extension of San Joaquin Hills Road from its current Major Highway (6 lane) status to a Primary H.ighway (4 lanes). Construction of the Corridor would reduce projected traffic volumes on San. Joaquin Hills Road enough to allow such a change. XII. Appendix--List of Attachments (In pocket -- attached for Council Mem- bers only. 1. 2. 3., 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Benjamin B. Public Works EM Notice of Public Hearing. Negative Declaration. City Attorney Opinion re Charter Section City Resolution No. 85 -11. Chamber of Commerce Resolution. Douglas Wood & Associates! Letter West End Traffic Circulation Analysis. Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee Program Document. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. 40 kzx- Nolan Director Att. (for Council Members only) 422. Ordinance. Fee Program Resolution. 13 f 5 4 1. E • f IE E, E, I at' L,Y IYV IIYL I IYVNY IYV IIYL i � VIIYL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM A major problem facing Newport Beach and South Orange County is traffic congestion. A partfai . solution to traffic congestion on Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard and on Coast Highway, MacArthur Boulevard and on the San Diego Freeway lies in constricting the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. In conjunction with the County of Orange and other affected cities, the City of Newport Beach proposed to levy fees on new development to pay for much of the construction costs. The purpose of title notice is to fulfill legal requirements for the City of Newport Beach's City Council to establish road fee programs for construction of the transportation corridor. THE PROPOSED FEE PROGRAM. AFFECTS ONLY NEW DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSED FEE PROGRAM DOES NOT AFFECT: °EXISTING HOMES *EXISTING COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS °BUILDING PERMITS FOR RESIDENTIAL REMODELING OR ADDITIONS °BUILDING PERMITS FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS NOTICE M HEREBY GIVEN that on November 12, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. In the City Council Chamber, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing to consider adopting Areas of Benefit and imposing tees on new development to raise a portion of the funding required to construct the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The balance of the required funds would come from other sources such as State and Federal transportation funds. Fees would be Imposed upon new development projects within the City of Newport Beach, and win be apportioned based upon the amount of traffic estimated to be created by each type of NEW development. Payment of the fees would be required at the time of building permit issuance. Fees would not be Imposed upon existing residential, commercial or Industrial uses or on building permits for residential remodeling or additions or for reconstruction of existing residential buildings which do not Increase the number of dwelling units. (A dwelling unit is a home, condominium or apartment.) The approximate boundaries of the Areas of Benefit are illustrated on the map contained In this notice. Action by the City Council will affect only areas within the City of Newport Beach. You have the right to appear at said hearing and be heard on this matter or you may submit written comments prior to close of the hear" addressed to the City Clerk, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915, attention City Clerk. For information, please can the Public Y� f $AN JOAOUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AREA OF BENEFIT FEE A LEGEND AREA OF BENEFIT BOUNDARY -- FEE ZONE BOUNDARY -- PROPOSED SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR FEE ZONE A AT-l-, i Zone A $ 1,305 o to Single Family Residence Zone 8 $ 1,010 o 0 Zone A $ 760 c ti Multiple Residential Unit Zone B $ 590 - Zone A $ 1 .75 /sq. ft. All Non - Residential Buildings' 9 7nrn a 1 1 _:aozqr,_ rr AT-l-, i A&EGATIVE DECLARATION . TO: Q Secretary for Resources 1416 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 © County Clerk of the County of Orange V,O.tox 838, Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: PLANNING DE ?AFT9LENT CITY Or NEWPORT 5EACH P.O. BOX 1768 NE'::PORT BEACH, CA 92:58 -891-5 NAME OF PROJECT: Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program PROJECT LOCATION: Northeasterly of upper Newport Bay & Coast Hwy /5th Avenue in City of eac PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Newport Enactment of a fee program to partially fund.the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. _ FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council i0oi�icy K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: NONE INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVE[) FOR FILING: Environmental Coordinator Date: October,24, 1985 -,t ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. t3ackgrcwnd I. Name of Proponent i l'fti op- . N E OPOLE 1 EACH 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent - 500 lV&VPO.P-,T BLiiy,, P0, BOX I LA i &- VEOi?T r1C l� 64. 9 - &f- P -R9 /S 3. Date of Checklist Submitted ()C -Mbj�Z Z����r✓ 4. Agency Requiring Checklist 4C%- 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable I>R P&�G II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Y_ 2. 3. 3 :• 1J Yes Maybe . No g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration X of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c.. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, - X either locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either fresh marine or waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface x runoff? ; ! c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not Limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity ?. f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, . either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations ?_ h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _ i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. 5. 6. 7. 9 4 • Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? . d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into .on area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d.. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 0 Yes Mafbe No _1Z.. X x X_ X X, x X X 0 b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of.hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or . radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: t a. Generation of substantial additional) vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? S Yes Maybe No "E X X X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? I 0 Yes M be. No x x Y X X IV. PAV 21. b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to Cause a, physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project hove the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period! of California history or prehistory? i b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short - term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- sideroble? (A project may irrQact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but .where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Yes LSt,J�1 X M V NRA On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and o NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could hove a significant effect I —I on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case — because the mitigation measures described on on attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- — ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. —) Signature z For ("':e' /Y �rf� G/� III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation PLT2 0 The Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program is one action needed to implement the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor in unincorporated Orange County. The program would provide funds to the County of Orange from development in the City of Newport Beach within defined areas of benefit. Final EIRS 187 and 267 of the County of Orange were complet- ed for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and identify the environmental effects of the project and incorporate measures to mitigate those effects. As allowed by Section 15168(d) (2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, these EIR's are incorporated by reference- into this analysis.. While these EIR's address the physical impacts of implemen- tation of the corridor, the impacts of a fee program were not addressed. This initial study focuses on impacts which may result from the implementation of the road fee program. The direct effects of the fee program are economic, not physical. Section 15131 of the State CEQA Guidelines state: " ... economic impacts shall not be treated as significant effects.on the environment.° However, consideration has been given to the possible indirect effects of the fee program to determine if there was any evidence that signifi- cant physical effects would result. It is currently estimated that the program will result in fees ranging from $590 -$1305 per dwelling unit for new construction. If it is assumed that this cost is passed on to the consumer (as opposed to reducing the raw land price), it will increase the price of housing and reduce affordabil- ity (an economic impact) . The only indirect adverse phys- ical effect which could be hypothesized for this increase in housing price relates to commuting patterns (increased distance) and the resultant effect on air quality. However, no empirically verified model relating housing price to these variables is available. In general, the road fee program should not be considered in isolation from regional growth projections included in the Air Quality Maintenance Program and the County's General Plan. The adopted Air Quality Maintenance Plan does not discuss affordable housing in the context of an air pol- lution mitigation measure, but incorporates the growth projections and their assumptions including the distribution of household income and the implementation of infrastructure to accommodate housing and employment growth. It is, therefore, concluded that there is no evidence that implementing the proposed Road Fee Program will have signif- icant effects on the physical environment. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY October 17, 1985 TO: Ben Nolan, Public Works Director FROM: 'Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney RE: Section 422 of the City Charter /San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor You have asked if Section 422 of.the Newport Beach City Charter prevents the City Council from approving the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee Program absent a vote of the people. Based upon my initial research, I believe the Council is empowered to adopt the Program, and the reasons for this opinion are as follows: 1. SECTION 422 WAS NOT INTENDED FREEWAY Section 422 of the City Charter was an Initiative ',Measure submitted to the voters on March 9, 1971. The Notice of Intent which accompanied the Initiative Petition contained a statement of the reasons for the action which were described as follows: "The Pacific Coast Freeway (Route 1) as adopted May 22, 1963, and proposed for construction, violates the environmental quality of the City of Newport Beach, California, destroys, large portions of its historical and maritime atmosphere, encroaches upon nearby beach areas, has retaining walls and embankments which erase beautiful, natural assets, severs and separates water - oriented portions of the community from its oceanfront d 7 -i. 3. Memo to Page 2 October Ben Nolan 17, 1985 0 �J beaches, admits tons of contaminants daily and completely divides the City into two separate parts." According to those that drafted the Measure, "this Initiative in no way attempts to cancel or rescind the Corona del Mar Freeway (Route 73)." At the time of the election, the Route 73 Freeway terminated at Pacific Coast Highway and the alignment of the proposed roadway was essentially the same as the route of the Corridor. It is obvious that Section 422 of the Charter was not intended to effect the Route 73 Freeway which, in 197.1, and within. the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach, maintained the same alignment as, but was much longer than, the. proposed Corridor. 2. ANY NECESSARY BY THE 1980 ELECTION ZATION WAS In November, 1980, the electorate overwhelmingly approved Ballot Measure "L." This Measure authorized the Newport Beach City Council to amend the Corona del Mar. Freeway Agreement. Documents submitted with Measure "L" depict the the 73 Freeway Connection to the .proposed San Joaquin, Hills Transportation Corridor. . Measure "L" was overwhelmingly approved by the voters and, assuming approval was required, appears to authorize the City Council to execute Agreements and adopt programs..relative, to the Corridor. 3. SECTION 422 OF THE CHARTER MAY BE PREEMPTED BY A recent ruling of the Orange County Superior Court suggests that local laws similar to Section 422 of the Charter may be invalid. As you know, the Irvine City Council was presented with an Initiative Petition that would require a vote of the people, prior. to the adoption of any ordinance, that would exact fees for the construction of the Corridor. According to legal counsel for those opposed to the Initiative, the.Court found the Measure intruded into a matter of state -wide concern and was therefore preempted. The State Legislature has specifically authorized the City Council of an city in Orange County to adopt an ordinance establishing a fee program to facilitate the construction of "major thoroughfares 'Iemo to Ben Nolan • • Page 3 October 17, 1985 whose primary, purpose is to carry through traffic and to provide. a network connecting to or which is part of the state highway syitem . . ." Under this reasoning, Section 422.of the City Charter of Newport Beach would, like the Irvine Initiative, be preempted . insofar as the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee Programs and Joint Powers Agreement are concerned. Should.you have any questions, please contact me. Robert H. Burnham City Attorney RHB /ic MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY October 25, IM . TO: Ben Nolan FROM: Robert Burnham, City Attorney: RE: San Joaquin Hills Transporation Corridor and City Charter Section 422 I received copies of pleadings 'filed by litigants opposed to the proposed Irvine Initiative Ordinance which would, with two limited exceptions, prohibit the City Council from . opposing or collecting any new 'corridor freeway fees. I have attached a, copy of the Court's ruling invalidating the Initiative and pertinent provisions of the petitioner's Memorandum of Points and Authorities upon which the Court apparently relied. The ruling of the Court, and the legal arguments that form the basis of that ruling, suggest that Section 422 of the.. . Charter could not. properly be applied. to any action of the. Council necessary to the financing or construction of the San.'. . Joaquin Hills Transportation.Corridor. Once you have had an opportunity to review this material, please call me so that we can discuss the two. related issues. E�bb6rt Burnham City Attorney RHB /jc Attachments RESOLUTION NO. 85 -11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXPRESSING THE CITY'S POSITION ON T SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR t ' \ WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Supervisors Inded the Master Plan. of Arterial Highways in August, 1976, incorporating a conceptually proposed alignment for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has previously expressed support for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor as a way of directing traffic around Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the County of Orange has proposed a land development fee program to pay a portion of the cost of the facility; and WHEREAS, the County of Orange has proposed creation of a joint powers authority to implement construction of the facility; and WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding has been prepared as a step towards creation of the joint powers authority; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has continuing concerns about cer- tain design features and potential traffic and environmental impacts of the facility; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach expresses the following comments and concerns regarding the facil- ity to the Orange County Board of Supervisors: I. The City continues to support construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, as a way of directing traffic around Newport Beach, with implementation at the earliest practicable date. 2. The City concurs in the concept of a development fee program to fund a portion of the cost of the facility, with the understanding that only new development shall be subject to such fees. 3. The City supports the proposed joint powers authority, and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which is intended to be an initial step toward the joint powers authority. 1 4 7-7-, Ll 0 0 4. Reduce the overall spope of the initial project to not more than six regUlae travel lanes to be constructed in this -century. However, right-of- way for the ultimate improvement should be secured r o acquisitions are not needed in the future. 5. Design the Corridor as a scenic highway and Jan environmentally sensitive manner; with specific features incorporated to minimize grading impacts, including slope rounding, variable slope ratios, contouring, and split- level roadways where feasible. 6. The connection of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hills Road shall not occur until Pelican Hills Road is fully operational. San Joaquin Hills Road should not exceed four travel lanes as it connects to Pelican Hills Road. The extension of San Joaquin Hills Road east of Pelican Hills Road to the Corridor shall not occur. 7. There will be no Corridor interchange connection with San Miguel Drive or Ford Road. 8. Incorporate measures to discourage through truck traffic. 9. Carefully analyze noise impacts and impacts upon archaeological and paleontological sites, flora and fauna and incorporate any necessary mitigation measures into the project. 10. Particular priority shall be;given to providing design features and construction requirements which will minimize siltation impacts on Newport Bay. 11. A staged construction program should be developed which is specifi- cally intended to minimize impacts on the existing street system. 12. Additional and /or revised comments will be made as a part of the environmental review process. 13. It is the overriding policy of the City that the integrity of the Circulat.ion_Element of the General Plan be maintained; and that the Transporta- tion Corridor be designed in a way which will distribute traffic to the arterial street system without exceeding the capacity of individual elements of the system. For example, the design and construction phasing shall not result in. traffic burdens on Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar which would cause parking to be removed. 2 14. The Mayor is authorized to execute the MOU, with the understanding that the City of Newport Beach will not participate in the program to fund, design, approve or construct the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor unless, and until, the City's concerns expressed in the resolution are fully protected in the joint powers agreement or otherwise. ATTEST: City Cler ADOPTED this 25th day of February 1985. GD Mayor 4AAIuI 3 Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce 1470 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, California 92660 714! 644-9211 . A RESOLUTION OF THE NEWPORT HARBOR AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REGARDING THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Supervisors amended the Master Plan of Arterial Highways in August 1976, incorporating a,. conceptually- proposed alignment for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the Newport.Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce have previously expressed support for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor as a way of directing thru traffic around Newport Beach and thereby reducing traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and the San Diego Corridor; and WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding has been prepared as a step .towards creation of a joint powers authority to implement. construction of the facility; and WHEREAS, the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce has reviewed Resolution 85 -11 expressing the City of Newport Beach's position on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach requested that the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road east of Pelican Hills Road to the Corridor should not occur; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach requested that there be no Corridor interchange connection with San Miquel Drive or Ford Road; and Ate,. s WHEREAS, there has been no transportation analysis specifically, addressing these considerations requested by the City of Newport Beachs NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce expresses the following comments and concerns, regarding the facility to the Newport Beach City Council: 1. The Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce continues to support early construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor as a way of directing thru traffic around Newport Beach and reducing traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and the San Diego Freeway` Corridor. 2. The Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce is concerned that the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road east of Pelican Hills Road to, the Corridor, and the Corridor interchange connection with San Miquel or Ford Road, are recommended to be deleted prior to.a complete analysis of impacts. 3. The Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce requests the City of Newport Beach to modify paragraphs 6 and 7 of Resolution 85 -11 and simply state that the above design considerations (Item 2 herein) be thoroughly analyzed in the EIS currently being prepared on the subject project: Specifically, the studies shall address transportation effects both with and without these design considerations so that the impacts associated with their implementation or deletion can be fully ascertained and understood. this 15 h d`ay \of June 1985 President Douglas Wood & Associates Land Use Planning / Governmental Relations / Environmental Analysis October 3, 1985 County of Orange Environmental Management Agency Transportation Division P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Subject: Review of Draft San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, West End Analysis Dear Bob, It is the intent of this correspondence to respond to the Draft San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor West End Analysis (dated September 11, 1985). In so doing, this correspondence reflects the opinions and interests of the Spyglass Hill Community Association, by whom I have been retained, as well as several other Community Associations in the East Newport Beach area. These responses are divided into two basic areas of concern. First, several technical questions are raised concerning certain facts or assumptions contained in the West End Analysis. Second, we offer a response to the Conclusions within the analysis, which . recommends an alternative to the currently planned roadway network leading to the Corridor, TECHNICAL CONCERNS 1) As indicated on page 2 of the Analysis, traffic forecasts are based upon 2010 population and land use forecasts. The assumptions used in reaching these 2010 base levels are important in that it appears that several roadways in the area will be at or near capacity (1.00 volume /capacity ratio as shown on pages 17 - 18 of the Analysis) as a consequence of this assumed growth prior to any alteration in the proposed roadway system. it would be useful to see an explanation of these growth assumptions accompanied by a graphic comparing 2010 traffic levels with existing 1985 traffic in order to assess the magnitude of these base growth assumptions. Such a comparison consideration of configurations. For growth of 30% to the deletion or realign network would be a increase. would all, Various example, if year 2010, iient. of a relatively aw a more rational and informed alternative roadway. network a roadway undergoes an assumed an additional 38 due to the segment of roadway within the small and possibly worthwhile 3800 Inlet Isle, Corona Del Mar, California 92625 714/759 -8949 Q 2) The assumed ultimate width of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor will have a major effect upon traffic volumes on all connecting roadways. Predicted traffic volumes (137,000 - 142,000 average daily trips) are indicative of an eight -lane roadway (four per direction). If the Corridor were built and maintained at an ultimate width of six lanes (as is currently being discussed), it appears that Corridor traffic volumes, as well as those on connecting roadways,. would be reduced significantly. This reduction may allow for implementation of various alternative roadway configurations without any single roadway exceeding its design capacity. Since the San Joaquin Hills Corridor is assumed in the 2010 traffic projection, to be eight lanes, an alternative indicating the effects of traffic emanating from a six -lane .Corridor may offer a realistic framework, for consideration of alternate roadway. network configurations. 3) Of detailed concern are additional traffic volumes assumed to be directed onto Pelican Hills Road and San Joaquin Hills.ROad with Alternative E. (This alternative features deletions of both Ford Road Interchange and San Joaquin Hills Road.) Within this alternative, it appears that 10,000 additional daily trips will be directed onto Pelican Hills Road, while 1,000 additional trips will be generated onto Bison Avenue. We would disagree with this assumed redistribution of traffic. It would seem more logical that a greater proportion of trips will utilize I Bison Avenue /MacArthur Boulevard for destinations in Newport Beach than would utilize Pelican Hills Road /San Joaquin Hills Road. RESPONSE TO CONCLUSIONS On page 19 of the Analysis, it is indicated that deletion of any arterials leading to the Corridor will lead to "ultimate deficiencies in the system ". We would respectfully question this conclusion, particularly when considering Alternate E. which deletes both the Ford Road Interchange and the proposed segment of San, Joaquin Hills Road, east of Pelican Hills Road. This Alternative creates the least amount of traffic redistribution, as indicated on Figure 6 (page 10 of the Analysis). Most affected arterial roadways .indicate a change of only 1,000 to 2,000 ADT. It is correctly indicated that this Alternative causes Pelican Hills,Road, Bison Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard (south of Bison Ave.) to exceed 2010 capacities. However, each of these roadways are at 948 to 978 capacity at 2010 without these deletions. These other factors and assumptions which create the near - capacity scenarios at 2010 would appear to be a far greeter influence upon the future arterial network. Of utmost significance when considering alternate network configurations is land uses surrounding these future arterials and interchanges. By considering future land uses of areas affected by these arterials leading to the Corridor, Alternative E gains credibility. Alternative E..provides a means of directing future automobile trips away from established residential .2 neighborhoods (adjacent to Ford Road, San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road). Minor changes are noted on these roadways in Alternative E, well within a four -lane roadway's capacity. Instead, traffic is directed to' Bison Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. These roadways are adjacent to areas designated for Manufacturing and Research, which generally allows light industrial and manufacturing uses. In addition, Bison Avenue is foreseen as the main entry to University of California, Irvine. Therefore, redirection of traffic onto Bison Avenue would have far fewer significant environmental impacts than is associated with other alternative configurations, several of which significantly increase traffic levels on other, more sensitive roadways in the area. In addition, expansion of Bison Avenue is viewed as a means of resolving potential capacity difficulties predicted for Alternative E, which again is far less detrimental environmentally than expansion. Expanding Bison Avenue to a six -lane facility reduces its 1.03 vehicle to capacity ratio to .61. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this Draft San Joaquin Hils Transportation corridor, West End analysis. Please keep us apprised as to the future consideration of this Analysis, as well as other opportunities to participate in the design and approval of the Corridor. Sincerely, i Douglas Wood Principal Douglas Wood r^ � & Associates cc: Spyglass Hill Community Association, Board.of Directors City of Newport Beach, City Council' City of Newport Beach, Public Works Department John Boslet, The Irvine Company Terence W. Austin, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Bob Duke 13 Draft SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR WEST END ANALYSIS Prepared by: Orange County EMA Transportation Division and Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Transportation Planning Consultants September 11, 1985 ATr: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR WEST END ANALYSIS This report summarizes the results of a traffic demand analysis for the west end of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor ( SJHTC). The purpose is to demonstrate the implications of deleting selected .freeway interchanges or arterial connections to the corridor. SCOPE The analysis material presented here concerns the portion of the SJHTC between MacArthur Blvd and Sand Canyon Avenue. Traffic forecasts for the year 2010 under the current plans for the Corridor are compared with the corresponding volumes when selected links or connections are deleted. Potential impacts of such deletions on arterial streets in the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine are thereby identified. Base. ' case for the analysis is the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways including the proposed configuration of the SJHTC. The alternative network configurations analyzed here are as follows: A. Deletion of .Ford Road interchange (Ford Road /Bonita Canyon Road, as an undercrossing only) B. Deletion of Ford .Road connection to the Corridor (retaining a partial interchange to connect with Bonita Canyon Road to the north) C. Deletion of Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Road connections to the corridor (both interchange and undercrossing deleted) D. Deletion of San Joaquin Hills Road extension from Pelican Hill Road to the Corridor E. Deletion of Ford Road interchange (as in Alt. A) and deletion of. San Joaquin Hills Road extension (as in Alt. D) F. Deletion of Ford Road /Bonita Canyon Road connections (as in Alt. C) and deletion of San Joaquin. Hills Road extension (as in Alt. D) 1 G. Deletion of Culver Drive /Pelican Hill Road connection. H. Deletion of Culver Drive /Pelican Hill Road connection plus deletion of Ford Road /Bonita Canyon Road connections (as in Alt. C) Hakes, the first three alternatives examine differing levels of connection. between Ford Road and the . Corridor. The fourth examines the affect of deleting the San Joaquin Hills Road extension to the corridor, and the 'next two alternatives are combinations of both deletions. The final two alternatives address the deletion of the Pelican Hill Road-Culver Drive connection. TRAFFIC FORECASTS The traffic forecasts for the alternatives analyzed here were developed from data produced by the traffic forecasting procedure used for the Ban Joaquin . Hills Transportation Corridor analysis. They. represent the year 2010, and are based on Countywide demographic projections for that year. The base case set of traffic forecasts , for the proposed corridor configuration are presented in Figure 1. The highway system configuration in . the ' base case assumes a full interchange at Ford Road and another full interchange where San Joaquin Hills Road connects to the corridor and Sand Canyon Avenue. It should also be noted that Pelican Hill Road is assumed to extend north of the corridor to connect with Culver Drive. This connection is on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, although it is not included on the City of Irvine's General Plan Circulation Element. Some of the alternatives examined here address the impact of deleting this link from the transportation system. The following sections present the differences in average daily traffic (ADT) volumes between the base case and each of the eight alternative network configurations. A. Deletion of Ford Road Interchange (Figure 2) - In this alternative; Ford Road is an undercrossing of the SJHTC rather than a full interchange. K, W xx Base Case ADT (000'x) - Figure 1 AN WA'w-2010 TRAFFIC FORECASTS BASE CASE: •UST#N'FOUfT ASSOCIATES, INC- 0 r� u A • 9 � r.xnl �tJ �E r� p) J lti fl) - 6��. 1_5 - - rtiJ ��.. •Yry a lui ,gl,ww xlw VA rWsroxrsrlON 14 no DEL IwN •� oe, (2)5 13 (2) g. �' r `� y nb ` Z4 y1 9 (6) r s 4 y • e i CF C9 I%iN = 3 (3) (2) 15 � r�tS { .anra casT xiwixrr 34 Nnsiot 8 XX Base Case ADT (000'x) Figure 2 �r� (yy) ---- Difference from Base -Case . Deleted facilities in this 2010 ADT DIFFERENCES FOR AmW� alternative: Ford Road interchange - ALTERNATIVE A •UtTIN•FOUlT ASSOCIATES. IMO. (Ford Road.as an undercrossin only) - - - • • There is hence circulation between Bonita Canyon Road and Ford Road, but no connection with the corridor for either facility. The effect of this deletion is to divert traffic to parallel facilities such as San Joaquin Hills Road. With 7,000 vehicles per day (VPD) diverted to San Joaquin Hills Road and some diversions to Bison and MacArthur,, volumes on Ford Road are reduced by 14,000 VPD. Volumes on San Joaquin Hills Road . increase from around 18,000 vehicles per day to 25,000 vehicles per day. B. Deletion of Ford Road Connection to the South (Figure 3) . - This alternative deletes the connection between Ford Road and the Corridor. A partial interchange is retained, which gives Bonita Canyon a connection to the Corridor, but no continuity to the south to connect with Ford Road. The effect of this deletion is to add traffic to Bison and to San Joaquin Hills Road. The former increases by 11,000 VPD to 24,000 VPD and the latter by 8,000 VPD to give 26.000 VPD. Some increase also occurs on University Drive adjacent to the Corridor (4,000 VPD). C. Deletion of Ford Road (Figure 4) - This alternative deletes. both the . Ford Road undercrossing and the interchange with the Corridor. Neither Ford Road nor Bonita Canyon Road therefore have access to the. Corridor (as in. Alt. A) and in addition, there is no undercrossing connection between the two so that both thru and corridor access traffic is diverted to alternative routes. As with the previous alternative, this deletion adds traffic to San Joaquin Hills Road due to the deletion of the interchange ramps. In addition, traffic between the south Irvine area and Newport Beach that uses the undercrossing in Alternative A is diverted to Bison and University. Compared to the base case, Bison south of the Corridor increases by 14,000 VPD to 27,000 VPD, and San Joaquin Hills increases by 9,000 VPD to 27,000 VPD. University Drive increases by 6,000 VPD to 30,000 VPD. 5 P 1 y� • 24 191x 1 v N 0 S) (6) )34 52129 28 v (1) 1) fiV510E I' XX BaseCase ADT (000's) (YY) Difference from Base Case Figure 3 ---- Deleted facilities in this alternative: (Ford Road Connection) 2010 ADT DIFFERENCES, FOR ALTERNATIVE'S' AUSTIN•FOUST A7/OCIAT[f,INC. • J `bl r ry� rtJ J f C J f a brf9 k, PIN ° 26 25 (11 (1) ? Twlfic can xiwwN M ' fM5 VE 2 I .XX Base Case ADT (000's) (yy) Difference from Base Case Figure 4 AM�� ---- Deleted facilities in this alternative: 2010 ADT DIFFERENCES FOR R i Ford Road and Bonita Canyon connections ' ALTERNATIVE C AUST/N-rOWT AsSOCU1TlS, IMC. • • I • D. Deletion of San Joaquin Hills Road Extension (Figure 5) - This alternative retains the Ford Road interchange as in the base case, but deletes the section of San Joaquin Hills Road between Pelican Hill . Road and Sand Canyon Avehue. The effect of this deletion is to divert some traffic to Ford while retaining some of the traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road but via a more circuitous route. Corridor trips destined for the south part of Newport Beach make the more, circuitous routing via Pelican Hill Road to reach San Joaquin Hills Road. The remainder divert to Ford Road. Hence the base case volume of 18,000 vehicles per day on San Joaquin Hills Road is slightly reduced, down to.14,000. That reduction of around 4,000 trips is mostly diverted over to Ford Road, and traffic on that facility increases from 30,000 to 33,000 vehicles per day. The remaining 1,000 VPD shows as a slight increase in traffic on local streets north of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and also a slight, increase on San Miguel. . E. Deletion of Ford Road Interchange and San Joaquin Hills Road .. Extension (Figure 6) - This alternative involves the deletion of two facilities that .provide access between Newport Beach and the Corridor. One, is the Ford.. Road interchange as in Alternative A (leaving Ford Road- Bonita Canyon as an undercrossing) and the other is the San Joaquin Hills Road extension as in Alternative D. As was shown previously, deletion of the Ford. Road interchange (but . . retaining the undercrossing) adds traffic to San Joaquin Hills Road and deletion of the San Joaquin Hills extension adds traffic to Ford Road. When both are. deleted, the major increase is on Bison. A slight increase occurs on San Joaquin Hills Road (2,000 VPD) as Ford Road traffic diverts to San Joaquin Hills via the more circuitous routing of Pelican Hill Road,. causing the section of Pelican Hill Road between . the Corridor and San Joaquin . Hills Road to increase. from 30,000 vehicles per day in the base case to 43,000 VPD. The other impact is on. Bison which increases by 6.000 VPD to 19,000 VPD. 8 ,� is wm (3) uli �m 0 c 24 fp) y � `: Ntx 26 25 C 1. (-i) ('1) xiew`Y21 34 (1) (1) (-1) 28 XX Base Case ADT (000'x) Figure 5 (yy) Difference from Base Case AMM�AM ----, Deleted facilities in this alternative: ,2010 ADT DIFFERENCES FOR "win San Joaquin Stills Road extension ALTERNATIVE D AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, Ole. �m 0 .e% (1) 221D 9 19TH U h S 17m ob 26 "Irle COST "16)Bh" 21 34 28 28 ° east XX Base case ADT (000's) (yy) Difference from Base Case Figure 6 ---- An WAN Deleted facilities in this alternative: An�� San Joaquin Hills Road extension and. 2010 ADT DIFFERENCES FOR Ford Road Interchange ALTERNATIVE X. •usT/M•FOUST rsaocuTES. INC- F. Deletion of Ford Road and San Joaquin Hills Road Extension (Figure 7) This alternative decreases local accessibility even more than Alternative E by also removing the Ford Road undercrossing. It is therefore a combination of AlternAtives C and D. The effect is to increase traffic on . San Joaquin Hills Road via the circuitous routing of Pelican Hill Road, and on Bison. San Joaquin Hills Road west of Pelican Hill Road increases by 3,000 VPD from 18,000 VPD in the base case to 21,000 vehicles per day. The majority of the diversion is to Bison, which increases from 13,000 in the base case to 28,000 VPD. University Drive is also impacted and increases from 24,000 to 30,000 VPD. MacArthur Blvd . south of Bison increases from 53,000 in the base case to 63,000 VPD. G. Deletion of Culver Drive - Pelican Hill Road Connection (Figure 8) - As noted previously, this link is part of the Orange County MPAH but is not included in the circulation element of the City of Irvine General -Plan. The impact of deleting it is to add traffic to various parallel facilities such as Bison, Bonita Canyon and Sand Canyon. Some trips also divert off the SJHTC to parallel facilities such as I -405. Volumes south of the Corridor are largely unaffected. H. Deletion of Culver Drive - Pelican Hill Road Connection and Ford Road (Figure 9) - This alternative combines the Ford Road deletion of Alternative C with the Culver Drive - Pelican Hill Road deletion of Alternative G. With no direct access between Bonita Canyon Road and the Corridor, traffic is diverted to Sand Canyon Avenue (9,000 VPD), Bison (11,000 VPD), and University Drive (6,000 VPD). South of the Corridor, the impact is similar to that of Alternative C. CAPACITY ANALYSIS The implications of each of these alternatives can be seen by comparing . volumes at selected locations on the arterial street system in this vicinity. LIM N N 1 J � . cams nun +ti. 23. 6 9 aryl A`�1 (6J ��4' tiryb, 1 rSS J M a rV mW .. aw�arar+rsux C00,0W lA 11 (I M xa.. (2) --142 16 %' (� g O a �� (.12) 237 azo) (SJ VIA N f 0 (4) N o 9 r.J tj 1 w fy %P26 25.w ti0 (1) (1) S ►sent MOST xIcxw+ 21 34 28 28 < 56 22 (1) 1) ear soa. r xX Base Case.ADT (000's) Figure 7 (yy) Difference from Base Case ,. WA' ---- � Deleted facilities in this alternative: Ford Road and Bonita Canyon'cdnnections 2010 ADT DIFFEREHCE9 FOR San Joaquin Hills' Road extension. ALTERNATIVE •usrIe-sonar ASSOCIATES, 109- XX Base Case ADT (000's) Figure 8 (yy) .Difference from Base Case- - wAN r� ---- Deleted facilities in this alternative - Culver DIFFERENCES FOR r� Culver Drive/Pelican Hill Road connec- waTie-sousT ASSOCIATES, INC. tion. ALTERNATIVE G 0 H Av h .CAMS (•6J .. •rein .� r{ 6 4 lry�n, e R A � t •' '` `�'. ro 14 30 `Y. ML IMR W128*40 , (• to Si) -f s (5) ,oh o Vis ry vT 23 '(Z) .1, ys 24_. V Y • 1 H �I, 12e �• v, ►, • w N N ti (-1) v :.c ,o^ 24 u.+ SA Tun TeUeTA 3a creel ear (.Sl 9(1) 11) • �I, 12e �• v, ►, • w N v :.c ,o^ 24 9(1) jos ^4 6 T ^ 26 fY 25 e r. 11 (yl (-3) dy 21 56k, rlJ 22 '"'"C COST NI&MeT 34 ee+ -1 j 28 28 r XX Base Case ADT. (0001s) Figure 9 (yy) Difference from Base Case .A= Mw ---- Deleted facilities in this alternative: Ford Road/Bonita Canyon'. connection and 2010 ADT DIFFERENCES FOR AUSTIN-FOUST AsaocIATas,!Me: ''Culver .Drive/Pelican Hili Road connecti ALTERNATIVE' @'. . • Figure 10 shows the locations for which the analysis was carried out and Table 1 provides a summary of the volumes and volume /capacity ratios for alternatives A thru F (G and H are not included since the major findings of the analysis are contained in the first five alternatives). For the purposes of this analysis, a capacity of 32,000 vehicles per day was assumed for 4 -lane arterials, 54,000 VPD for 6 -lane arterials and 180,000 VPD for the corridor (8 lanes). Two locations estimated to be close to capacity in the base case are Ford Road just south of the corridor (location 9) and Pelican Hill Road just south of the corridor (location 13). Volume /capacity ratios are estimated at .94 for both locations. Deletion of Ford Road (either the interchange ramps or the connection . itself) as in Alternatives A, B and C adds traffic to Pelican Hill Road (location 13) thereby exceeding the four -lane capacity of that facility, and accelerating,. the need for the ultimate six -lane section. Bison has its four lane capacity„ . exceeded in Alternatives B, C. E and F. MacArthur Blvd south of Bison (location T) has its six -lane capacity exceeded in Alternatives B, C. E and. F:. In Alternative D, the deletion of the San Joaquin Hills Road extension causes the capacity of Ford Road to be exceeded due to diversion of traffic to that facility. Pelican Hill Road south of the corridor has volumes considerably in excess of a four lane facility, again accelerating the need for the ultimate six lane facility. Alternatives E and F which feature both Ford Road and San Joaquin Hills deletions place an even greater load on Pelican Hill Road than Alternative D. Bison is over capacity, particularly in Alternative F. and in both alternatives volumes exceed capacity in the section of MacArthur between Bison and Ford. IMPACTS ON FORD ROAD AND SAN MIGUEL DRIVE Deletion of the Ford Road connection to the Corridor and /or to Bonita 15 E • San Niguel) 9 Ford (vest of 32,000 30,000 0.94 16,000 0.50 - -- -- -- 33,000 1.03 19,000 0.59 -- -- SJBTC) 10 San Miguel 32,000 15,000 0.47 13,000 0.41 10,000 0.31 10,000 0.31 17,000 0.53 14,000 0.44 10,000 0.31 (south of Ford) (continued next page) - - - Table 1 - -- i- i - - SJBTC NEST BBD CAPACITY ANALYSIS --BASE CASE-- ---ALT. A--- ...ALT. B--- ---ALT. C--- ---ALT. D--- --- ALT..9--- ---ALT. F' -- LOCATION CAPACITY Volume V/C. Volume V/C Volume V/C Volume V/C Volume - V/C Volume V/C Volume V/C. 1 University Dr. 54,000 24,000 0.44 24,000 0.44 28,000 0.52 30,000 0.56 24,000 0.44 24,000 0.44 30,000 0.56 (east of MacArthur) 2 Bison 32,000 30,000 0.94 32,000 1.00 35,000 1.09 38,000 1.19 30,000 0.94 33,000 1.03 39,000 1.22 - - (east of.SJBTC) . 3 California 32,000 10,000 0.31 11,000 0.34 15,000 0.47 16,000 0.50 10,000 0.31 11,000 0.34 11,000 0.53 (south of Bison) 4 Bonita Canyon 32,000 22,000 0.69 16,000 0.50 13,000 0.41 -- -- 22,000 0.69 19,000 0.59 -- -- (east of SJIILC) 5 .Culver 32,000 18,000 0.56 19,000 0.59 17,000 0.53 16,000 0.50 18,000 0.56 19,000 0.59 16,000 0.50 (north of Bonita _ Canyon)- 6 Bison (vest of 32,000 13,000 0.41 15,000 0.47 24,000 0.75 27,000 0.84 13,000 0.41 14,000 0.59 28,000 0.88 SJR C) 7 MacArthur 54,000 53,000 0.98 54,000 1.00 61,000 1.1.3 61,000 1.13 53,000. 0.98 57,000 1.06 63,000 1.17 (south of Bison) . 8 Ford (vest of 32,000 24,000 0.75 22,000 0.69 17,000 0.53 17,000 0.53 25,000 0.78 24,000 0.75 17,000 0.53' San Niguel) 9 Ford (vest of 32,000 30,000 0.94 16,000 0.50 - -- -- -- 33,000 1.03 19,000 0.59 -- -- SJBTC) 10 San Miguel 32,000 15,000 0.47 13,000 0.41 10,000 0.31 10,000 0.31 17,000 0.53 14,000 0.44 10,000 0.31 (south of Ford) (continued next page) - - - (Table 1 continued) Alt. A Deletion of Ford Road interchange (Ford Road as an overcrossing only). -- - - - Alt. B Deletion of Ford Road connection to the Corridor (retaining Bonita Canyon Connection). • j A1t..0 Deletion of Ford Road and Bonita.Canyon Road Connections. - - - - Alt. D Deletion of San Joaquin Hills Road extension from Pelican Hill Road to the.Corridor. Alt. E Deletion of Ford Road interchange (as in Alt. A) and deletion of San Joaquin Hills Road extension (as in Alt. D). _ i Alt. F Deletion of Ford Road/Bonita Canyon connections (as in Alt. C).and San Joaquin Hills Road extension (as in Alt. D). J • j --BASE CASE-- ---ALT. A--- ---ALT. B___ ---ALT. C___ ---ALT. D___ --ALT. lt - --- ALT. P --- LOCATION CAPACITY Volum V/C Volume . V/C Volume V/C Volume V/C Volume V/C Volume T/C Volume V/C 11 San Joaquin 54,000 24,000 0.44 25,000 0.46 25,000 0.46 26,000 0.48 22,000 0.41 24,000 0:44 26,000 0.46 Hills Rd (south of MacArthur) 12 San Joaquin 32,000 18,000 0.56 25,000 0.78 26,000 0.81 27,000 0.64 14,000 0.44 20,000 0.63 22,000 0.69 �. Hills Rd (vest of Pelican Hill) 13 Pelican Hill 32,000 30,000 0.94 33,000 1.03 35,000 1,09 36,000 1.13 39,000 1.22 43,000 1.34 44,000 1.38 (south of SJHTC) 14 SJNDC (north 180,000 142,000 0.79 128,000 0.71 139,000 0.77 130,000 0.72 145,000 0.81 129,000 0.72 130,000 0.72 of Pelican Hill) 15 SJHTC (south of 180,000 137,000 0.76 129,000 0.72 136,000 0.76 132,000 0.73 148,000 0.82 148,000 0.82 147,000 0.82 Pelican Hill) Alt. A Deletion of Ford Road interchange (Ford Road as an overcrossing only). -- - - - Alt. B Deletion of Ford Road connection to the Corridor (retaining Bonita Canyon Connection). • j A1t..0 Deletion of Ford Road and Bonita.Canyon Road Connections. - - - - Alt. D Deletion of San Joaquin Hills Road extension from Pelican Hill Road to the.Corridor. Alt. E Deletion of Ford Road interchange (as in Alt. A) and deletion of San Joaquin Hills Road extension (as in Alt. D). _ i Alt. F Deletion of Ford Road/Bonita Canyon connections (as in Alt. C).and San Joaquin Hills Road extension (as in Alt. D). J • j 0 • Canyon Road reduces traffic on both Ford and San Miguel. In the case of San Miguel, it is thru traffic that is deleted, the reduction being 2,000 VPD if only the ramps are deleted and 5,000 VPD if the connection is deleted. On Ford Road, deletion of the ramps reduces thru traffic by 7,000 VPD, but adds back some San Miguel and other local traffic that would otherwise travel up to the.Corridor (5,000 VPD)'. With the connection deleted, 16,000 VPD thru traffic is deleted and 9,000 VPD local traffic added back. CONCLUSIONS It is apparent from this analysis that the currently planned connections to the Corridor provide a balanced circulation system that distributes the traffic to and from Newport Beach onto several arterials. Deletion of any one will result in the need to increase the capacity of one or more of the others, and lead to ultimate deficiencies in the system. The primary impacts are to Bison, San Joaquin Hills Road, and MacArthur Blvd. California is impacted by the deletion of the Ford Road interchange, as is University Drive. Of significance is the finding that if all connections are provided, none of the access arterials (Bison, Ford and San Joaquin Hills) need be more than four lanes in 2010. It must be emphasized that the conclusions noted above apply to 2010 volumes on the future highway system. Sizing of the Corridor and supporting arterial system must look beyond that time, and in particular, volumes on the Corridor will show some growth beyond 2010. 19 ORDINANCE NO. 22-6 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING SECTIONS 15.42.010 THROUGH 15.42.100 TO THE CITY CODE ADOPTING A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM. WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66484.3 authorizes the City to require by ordinance the payment of a fee as a condition of approval of a final subdivision map or as a condition of issuing a building permit for the purpose of defraying the cost of constructing major thoroughfares and bridges; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt such a fee program in order to insure that future development shall pay a share of the costs of constructing transportation systems adequate to serve that development. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby ordains as follows: _ Section 1: Sections 15.42.010 through 15.42.100 are hereby added to the City Code to read in its entirety as follows: Program. "Section 15.42.010.Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee (A) A building issuance of an amount a; defray the waterways, consructing permit applicant, as a a building permit, shall id manner as provided in t costs of constructing railways, freeways and major throroughfares. Section 15.42.020. Definitions. condition of pay a fee in nis chapter to bridges over canyons, or (1) The term 'construction' as used in this section includes preliminary studies, design, acquisition of right -of -way, administration of construction contracts, and actual construction. (2) The term 'major thoroughfare' means those roads designated as transportation corridors and major, primary, secondary or commuter highways on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, the Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach. The primary purpose of such roads is to carry through traffic and provide a network connecting to the State highways system. (3) 'Bridge facilities' mean those locations identified in the transportation or flood control provisions of the Circulation Element or other element of the General Plan as requiring a bridge to span a waterway, e railway, freeway, or canyon. -1- A-rr; B 0 (4) 'Area of benefit' means a specified area wherein it has been determined that the real property located therein will benefit from the construction of a major thoroughfare or bridge project. Section 15.42.030. Conditions. (A) The provisions herein for payment of a fee shall apply only if the major thoroughfare or bridge facility has been included in an element of the City's General Plan or an element of the General Plan of the County of Orange which was adopted at least thirty (30) days prior to the application for a building permit. (B) Payment of fees shall not be required unless the proposed major thoroughfares) are in addition to, or a widening or reconstruction of, any existing major thoroughfare(s) serving the area at the time of the adoption of the boundaries of the area of benefit. (C) Payment of fees shall not be required unless the proposed bridge facility is a new bridge serving the area or an addition to an existing bridge facility serving the area at the time of the adoption of the boundaries of the area of benefit. Section 15.42.040. Notice of Hearin (A) Action to establish an area of benefit may be Initiated by the City Council upon its own motion or upon the recommendation of the Public Works Director. The City Council shall set a public hearing for each .proposed area benefited. Notice of the time and place of said hearing including preliminary information related to the boundaries of the area of benefit, estimated costs and the method of fee apportionment shall be given in the following manner: (B) Notice shall be given at least ten (10) calendar days before the hearing by the following: (1) Notice published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within the proposed area of benefit. (2) Notices posted throughout the proposed area of benefit with at least three (3) notices posted at arterial highway intersections within the proposed area of benefit. (3) Notices sent by first -class mail addressed to each property owner within the boundary of the proposed area of benefit. (4) Notices sent by first -class mail to all known Homeowners' Associations within the proposed area of benefit. (5) Notice by first -class mail to any person who has filed a written request therefor with the Director of Public Works. Such request shall -2- 0 apply for the calendar filed. 0 year in which it is Section 15.42.050. Public Hearing /Area of Benefit. (A) At the public hearing the City Council will consider the testimony, written protests, and other evidence. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council may, unless a majority written protest is filed and not withdrawn as specified in Section 15.42.060 (A) determine to establish an area of benefit. If established, the City Council shall adopt a resolution describing the boundaries of the area of benefit, setting forth the cost, whether actual or estimated, and the method of fee apportionment. A certified copy of such resolution shall be recorded by the City Clerk with the Orange County Recorder's Office. (B) Such apportioned fees shall be applicable to all property within the area of benefit and shall be payable as a condition of issuing a building permit authorizing certain construction on such property or portions thereof. Where the area of benefit includes lands not subject to the payment of fees pursuant to this section, the City Council shall make provisions for payment of the share of improvement cost apportioned to such lands from other sources. Section 15.42.060. Protests. (A) Written protests shall be received by the City Clerk at any time prior to the close of the public hearing. If written protests are filed by the owners of more than one -half of the area of the property to be benefited by the improvement, and sufficient .protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the area repesented by the protests to less than one -half of the area to be benefited, then the proposed proceedings shall be abandoned, and the City Council shall not, for one year from the filing of said written protests, commence or carry on any proceedings for the same improvement under the provisions of this section. Any protests may be withdrawn by the owner making the same, in writing, at any time prior to the close of the public meeting. (B) If any majority protest is directed against only a portion of the improvement, then all further proceedings under the provisions of this section . to construct that portion of the improvement so protested against shall be barred for a period of one year, but the City Council shall not be barred from commencing new proceedings not including any part of the improvement so protested against. Such proceedings shall be commenced by a new notice and public hearing as set forth in Section 15.42.040 (A) above. (C) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the City Council, within such one -year period, from commencing and carrying on new proceedings for the construction of an improvement or portion of the improvements so protested against if it finds, by -3- the affirmative vote of four - fifths of that the owners of more than one -half of the property to be benefited are going forward with such improvement thereof. Section 15.42.070. Use of Fees. its members, of the area in favor of or portion Fees paid pursuant to this section shall be deposited in a planned bridge facility or major thoroughfare fund. A fund shall be established for each planned bridge facility project or each planned major thoroughfare project. If the area of benefit is one in which more than one bridge or major thoroughfare is required to be constructed, a separate fund may be established covering all of the bridge projects or major thoroughfares in the area of benefit. If the area of benefit encompasses one or more bridges and one or more thoroughfares and all lands within the area of benefit are subject to the same proportionate fee for all bridges and thoroughfares, a single fund may be established to account for fees paid. Moneys in such fund shall be expended solely for the construction or reimbursement for construction of the improvements serving the area to be benefited and from which the fees comprising the fund were collected, or to reimburse the City for the costs of constructing the improvement. Section 15.42.080. In Lieu Consideration. The City Council may approve the acceptance of consideration in lieu of the payment of fees established herein. Section 15.42.080. Advances From Other Funds. The City Council may approve the advancement of money from the General Fund, the capital improvements fund or the contributions fund to pay the costs of constructing the improvements covered herein and may reimburse these funds for such advances from planned bridge facility or major thoroughfare funds established pursuant to this chapter. Section 15.42.100. Reimbursement. If the building permit applicant, as a condition of the issuance of the building permit, is required or desires to construct a bridge or major thoroughfare, the City Council may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the applicant. Such agreement may provide for payments to the applicant from the bridge facility or major thoroughfare fund covering that specific project to reimburse the applicant for costs not allocated to the applicant's property in the resolution establishing the area of benefit. If the bridge or major thoroughfare fund covers more than one project, reimbursements shall be made on a pro rata basis reflecting the actual or estimated costs of the projects covered by the fund." Section 2. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official 1 newspaper of the City, and the same shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the day -4- of , 1985 and was adopted on the day of , 1985 by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIMEMBERS ATTEST: City Clerk NOES, COUNCILAWMERS ABSENT, COUNCIUVIEMBERS Mayor -5- MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM FOR SAN JOAOUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AND FOOTHILL/ EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS PREPARED BY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TRANSPORTATION /FLOOD CONTROL PROGRAM OFFICE JULY 1985 ExH(otr A A-r-r: 10 • or MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM FOR SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION OORRIDOR AND FOOTHILL/EABTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS Prepared by Environmental Management Agency Transportation/Flood Control Program Office JULY 1985 �i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE Executive Summary I Background II Description of Corridor III Corridor Planning IV Estimated Costs V Overall Financing VI Area of Benefit VII Description of Area of Benefit (AOB) VIII Fees IX Deferral of Fees X Criteria for Collection of Fees XI Development Exactions & Credits XII Annual Fee Adjustment XIII City Participation in Fee Program DT20 -4 Cal PAGE 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 15 21 21 21 24 24 • i LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NO. TITLE PAGE I Area of Benefit Index Nap with City Boundaries II Resolution 82 -598, Transportation Corridor 21 Development Policy III. Area of Influence for Corridor Users, 24 San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor IV Area of Influence for Corridor Users, 25 Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors: V Area of Benefit, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor 26 VI Area of Benefit, Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors 27 VII Fee Program Share Of Total Corridor Cost, SJHTC VIII Fee Program Share of Total Corridor Cost, F/ETC IX Cost Per Trip End Analysis, SJHTC X Cost Per Trip End Analysis, F/ETC XI Daily Vehicle Trip Generation Rates LIST OF TABLES TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE IV -1 San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Cost 6 IV -2 Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Cost 7 VII -1 San Joaquin Hills Am 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 13 VIII -4 Area of Benefit Fees 18 DT20 -4 F9 MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM FOR SAN JOAQUIN HILLS AND FOOTHILL /$ASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS Executive Summary It can no longer be expected that facilities such as the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) and Foothill /Eastern Transportation Corridors (F /ETC) can be fully funded from the traditional revenue sources used. to construct southern California's existing freeway network.. Supplemental funding sources must therefore be developed 'if these important components of Orange County's transportation system are to be developed to provide relief to existing congested facilities and support orderly development within cities and unincorporated areas. Development fees represent a potential supplemental funding source and as such have been under consideration by the Board of Supervisors for some time. The development fee program prepared for Board of Supervisors consideration is based upon Government Code.Sections 50029, 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 SJRTC 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- Fees for each of the fee zones within the areas of benefit are: SJHTC Single Family Multi -Unit Von- Residential Residential Residential Zone A $1,305 /unit $760 /unit $1.75 /sf. 30" a - $1,010 /unit $590 /unit $1.30 /sf. F /ETC Zone A $1,295 /unit $755 /unit $1.80 /sf. Zone 8 $ 920 /unit. $535 /unit $1.05 /sf. Developers who are .required to construct portions of the transportation corridors will receive credit for: that work toward the payment of their fees. The amount of credit will not be adjusted with subsequent revisions to the fee program once it is memorialized by agreement. This credit may be transferred to another landowner within the same area of benefit only with the change in title to the land. Payment of fees for residential multi -unit rental projects may 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 158. Properties which are exempt from payment of property taxes will generally be exempt from payment of corridor fees. Governmental owned and constructed facilities and utilities will be exempt unless the facility is used for commercial or revenue generating purposes. Portions of twelve cities are included within the benefit areas for the SJHTC and F/ETC. The County may adopt a fee program only within the unincorporated areas. Participation by cities, therefore, is an important ingredient to a successful program that does not create inequities to property owners within differing jurisdictions. City and County cooperation is not only required in the adoption of a program and collection of fees, but should extend to decisions regarding expenditure of the funds. It is planned that Joint Powers Agencies consisting of City and County members will be created to plan and implement the Corridors. All fees collected under this program will be deposited in accounts specifically for the transportation corridors to accomplish this purpose. -2- +7AJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM . FOR SAN JOAQUIN HILLSS 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 EM 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 Bills 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- 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- controll ®d multimodal facility with a median of sufficient width to be utilized for transit considerations such as fixed rail or high - occupancy vehicles. The corridors will provide for high speed movement of vehicular traffic where projected volumes exceed major arterial highway capacities. These routes will function similarly to. freeways and expressways and should eventually be incorporated into the freeway and expressway system. They are, therefore, designed to meet minimum State and Federal standards. The relatively rapid growth and planned future development in Orange County is contributing directly to the need for major transportation corridors. Three such corridors (Foothill, Eastern and San Joaquin Bills) are included on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAR), a component of the Transportation Element of the Orange County General Plan. Transportation corridors are depicted on the MPAH map as either concept- ually proposed or established alignments. These facilities are part of a planned traffic circulation system necessary to support development of the County in accordance with County and City land use plans. These facilities will also relieve recurrent congestion on major arterials and freeways in Orange County as concluded by several recent. studies: Multi- modal Transportation Study (1980), Santa Ana Transportation Corridor Study (1981), Foothill Transportation Corridor Study (1981), and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Study (1979). The SAN JOWIN 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 MPAH 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 (I -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 Freeway (I -5) below San Clemente in San Diego County. It is anticipated the Eastern corridor will be a landscaped, grade separated scenic corridor which includes approximately six general purpose travel lanes and the Foothill Corridor, a landscaped corridor which includes four to six general purpose travel lanes with medians or other areas wide enough to accommodate BOV /Special Transit requirements if necessary. Access to the corridor will be limited to grade - separated interchanges with arterial highways plus provisions for future exclusive interchange ramps for HOV lanes. III. CORRIDOR PLANNING The level of facility planned in this report will support currently adopted land use plans of the County and Cities surrounding the corridors. In the event the Cities. and County subsequently augment their existing General Plan land uses, particularly in areas serving the Foothill and Eastern Corridors, those facilities may require increased lane's 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 Kar Freeway) to include the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. -5- • 9 IV. ESTIMATED COSTS The construction costs within this report include estimates for all corridor grading and. general travel lane improvements including bridges, .structural section, interchanges, partial landscaping, and arterial highway realignments dictated by the corridor alignments. The cost of grading general High - Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes is included but not the Cost of HOV structural section, bridges, median barriers or special access ramps.. It is intended that implementation of any transit guideway or HOV facilities, if needed, would be provided from other funding sources. other costs included for both Corridors includes engineering design, administration, construction inspection and right -of -way acquisition costs. It is proposed that developers will dedicate the majority of right -of -way for the transportation corridors. The cost estimate includes a cost for the portion of the right -of -way which would exceed a standard major arterial highway constructed along the corridor alignment excluding slope easements. The portion of right -of -way equivalent to a major arterial highway is excluded from the estimate to maintain a policy consistent with other arterial highway dedications. The cost of slope easements is excluded because of the wide variations between the natural terrain condi- tions and final development of adjacent lands, the inability to estimate the easement areas with certainty, and for consistency with existing arterial development policy. Right -of -way required to realign any inter- secting arterial highway was also excluded from the cost estimate on the assumption that it will be dedicated in accordance with established development policy. The right- of-way to be included as part of the corridor cost was assumed to have a value of $50,000 /acre. A.'. SAN 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: Engineering & Admin.: Contingencies: Right Of Way (in excess of Major Arterial Hwy.): Total (for purposes of Fee Program): SE $259,736,000 38,960,000 25,974,000 16,990,000 $341,660,000 B. FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS (F /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 prid0s used in the cost estimates are considered to adequately estimate the cost in 1984 dollars. The estimated costs are as follows: TABLE IV -2 FOOTHILL /EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS COST Foothill Eastern Total Construction: $233,557,000 $143,526,000 $377,083,000 Eng. % Admin.: 35,033,000 21,528,500 56,561,500 Contingencies: 35,033,000 21,528,500 56,561,500 Right Of Way (in excess of. major Art. Hwy.): 14,151,000 11,790,000 25,941,000 Total (for purposes of Fee Program): $317,774,000 $198,373,000 $516,147,000 V. OVERALL FINANCING The Board of Supervisors has established a transportation corridor development policy (Exhibit II) which defines the corridor implementation obligations of land development 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 s 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. CkC The statutes identified in Section I of this report which authorize the collection of development fees specify that an Area of Benefit (AOB) shall be established which encompasses real property, which will benefit from construction of the major thoroughfares and bridges. The method of determining the AOB and the share of total corridor costs proposed to be paid by new development in the form of fees. is explained in sections VI and VIII of this report. The estimated corridor costs and the portions proposed to be allocated to, new development through the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge (MT &B) fee program are: New Development Approximate Total Cost Share of Cost 8 San Joaquin Hills: $341,660,000 $165,500,104 48.48 Foothill /Eastern: 5516,147,000 $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 &S fees to the.extent that these costs are included in the fee program. VI.. AREA OF BENEFIT In order. to. establish an MT &B 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 tthose 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 Up OAD3) 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 4% level. The determination of the AOB for each of the transportation corridors was based primarily on the above corridor influence areas. However, the following additional criteria were used to supplement the percent of corridor use data to analyze relative benefits: 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. 3UR04D is one of the computer programs in UTPS. It is a comprehensive flexible highway assignment and analysis program. -9- 1. Corridor trip ends exceed 1.75 trip ends per gross acre of the TAZ. 2. Total.corridor trip ends per TAZ exceed 2,000. 3. Trip end growth within each TAZ exceeds 458. 4. Perceived direct and indirect benefits to the transportation system. Identifiable physical and planned features closely approximating the pattern of corridor usage were used to describe the boundaries of the benefit areas. Within each area of benefit, some lands were judged to receive more benefit than others from the construction of the corridors. Developments which create relatively high demands for use of the corridors were placed in a different fee zone within the area of .benefit than other developments with less direct use. The boundaries between the fee zones were determined utilizing the TAZ data on Exhibits III and IV. Traffic analysis zones 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 (AOB) The AOB!s for the San Joaquin Bills and the combined Foothill /Eastern Corridors include both incorporated and unincorporated territory and generally, encompass the southeasterly half of Orange County as illustrated on Exhibit .I. A. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR A more detailed map of. the San Joaquin Bills 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 RILLS AOB BY LOCAL JURISDICTION City Area Included in AOB Costa Mesa Irvine Laguna Beach Newport Beach San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana City Subtotal Unincorporated.Territory Total -10- 3.2 sq. miles 22.2 5.6 8.3 3.8 8.2 2.8 54.1 68.3 122.4 sq. miles 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 Collet Highway, thence northwesterly along the centerline of said Cdidt 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 (Pacility,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 Fscolar); 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; thence southerly along the centerline of said La Movia Avenue and its proposed 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- Capistrano; thence southeasterly along said city external boundary defined by Incorporation boundaries of April 19, 1961 and annexation nos. 105 and 24 and deannexation per City resolution 62- 11 -13 -2 to Interstate 5; thence southerly along the centerline of , said Interstate 5 to its intersection with the 'Orange /San Diego County lifie; and thence southerly along said County line to the PaciflO Ocean.. Zone A Zone A is bounded on the south by the Pacific Ocean and is described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the total area of benefit westerly boundary with the Pacific Ocean; thence along said total area of benefit boundary to Marguerite Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of said Marguerite Avenue to San Joaquin Bills Road; thence easterly along the center line of said San Joaquin Hills Road to Spyglass Hill Road; thence northerly along the centerline of said Spyglass Hill Road to San Miguel Drive; thence northerly along the centerline of said San Miguel Drive to Ford Road; thence northeasterly along the centerline of said Ford Road and its proposed northeasterly extension as shown on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways dated August 8, 1984, to Bonita Canyon Road; thence easterly along the center line of said Bonita Canyon Road to the proposed southerly extension of Sand Canyon Avenue as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence easterly along the centerline of the proposed extension of .Sand Canyon Avenue to the westerly extension of Bake Parkway as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence easterly along the centerline of the proposed extension of said Bake Parkway to Laguna Canyon Road; thence southerly along the centerline of said Laguna Canyon Road to the proposed westerly extension of Santa Maria Avenue as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence easterly along the centerline of the proposed extension of Santa Maria Avenue and Santa Maria Avenue to Moulton Parkway; thence southerly along the centerline of said Moulton Parkway to El Toro Road, thence northeasterly along the centerline of said El Toro Road to Paseo de Valencia; thence southeasterly along the centerline of said Paseo de Valencia and its easterly prolongation to intersect Interstate 5 which is also the easterly boundary of the total area of benefit; thence southerly along said easterly boundary of the total area of benefit boundary to where it again intersects Interstate 5 in the vicinity of Camino Las Ramblas; thence northerly along the centerline of said Interstate 5 to San Juan Creek Road; thence westerly along the centerline of said San Juan Creek Road to Camino Capistrano; thence northerly along the centerline of said Camino Capistrano to Del Obispo Street; thence westerly along the centerline of said Del Obispo Street to Alipaz Street; thence southerly along the centerline of said Alipaz Street to Camino Del Avion; thence westerly, along the centerline of said Camino Del Avion and its proposed westerly prolongation as shown on said Master Plan of Arterial Highways, to Crown Valley Parkway; thence southerly along the centerline of said Crown Valley Parkway to Monarch Bay Drive; thence southwesterly along Monarch Bay Drive and its southwesterly prolongation to the Pacific Ocean. -12- Zone B Zone B is described by the total San Joaquin Bills area of benefit excluding Zone.A as described above. 13, FOOTHILL /EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS . single area of benefit was selected for the combined Foothill and Eastern Transportation Corridors because of corridor usage patterns. A more detailed map of the Foothill/Eastern Corridors AOB is shown on Exhibit VI. This AOB contains approximately 291 square miles. All or portions of the following cities are included in this AOB: TABLE VII -2 FOOTBILL/EASTERN AOB BY LOCAL JURISDICTION City Anaheim Irvine Orange San Clemente San Juan. Capistrano . Santa Ana Tustin Villa Park Yorba Linda City Subtotal Unincorporated Territory Total Area Included in AOB 14.1 sq. miles 18.9 10.6 13.5 5.0. 2.8 11.1 2.1 17.7 95.8 194.7 290.5 sq. miles The AOB is bounded generally by the northerly boundary of the San Joaquin Bills Transportation Corridor AOS 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 Bill Avenue; thence northeasterly along the centerline of said Red Bill Avenue to Warner Avenue; thence northeasterly along the centerline of said. Warner Avenue to State Route 55; thence northeasterly along the centerline of said State Route 55 to Edinger Avenue; thence westerly along the centerline of said Edinger Avenue to Grand Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of said Grand Avenue to Seventeenth Street; thence easterly along the centerline of said Seventeenth Street to State Route 55; thence northerly along the centerline of said State Route 55 to the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91); thence northwesterly along the centerline of said State Route 91 to Tustin Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of said Tustin Avenue to Jefferson Street; thence northerly along said Jefferson Street to the southerly city limits of Placentia; .thence along the external boundary of said city limits defined by annexation nos. 69 -1, 76 -1, 71 -01, -13- 65 -4, 63 -3, 64 -1, 65 -7, 63 -4, 63 -2, 64 -4, and 72 -2 to its intersection with Imperial Highway; Placentia to Imperial Highway; thence southwesterly along the centerline of said Imperial Highway to Valley View Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of said Valley View Avenue and its prolongation to the southerly boundary of Chino Hills State Park; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of Chino Hills State Park to its intersection with the Orange /San Bernardino County line; thence southeasterly along the Orange County line to the boundary of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Area of Benefit. ZONE A Zone A begins at the Orange /San Bernardino County line where said County Line intersects the centerline of the proposed extension of La Palma Avenue as shown on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways dated August 8, 1984; thence westerly along the centerline of said proposed La Palma Avenue to the proposed extension of Gypsum Canyon Road as shown in said Master Plan of Arterial Highways; thence southerly along the centerline of said proposed Gypsum Canyon Road to the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91) ; thence westerly along the centerline of said State Route 91 to the northwesterly prolongation of the easterly boundary of the Wallace Ranch as shown in Orange County Record of Survey 2 -5; thence southeasterly along said prolongation of the easterly boundary of the Wallace Ranch and continuing' southeasterly along said easterly boundary to the northeasterly corner of the Oak Hills Ranch as shown in said Record of Survey 2 -5; thence southeasterly along the easterly boundary of said Oak Hills Ranch as shown in said Record of Survey 2 -5 and continuing southwesterly along the southerly boundary of said Oak Hills Ranch as 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 A08s; 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 & B Zones) based upon peak hour and non -peak hour travel characteristics. Approximately sixty-one per'centl (618) 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 (398) 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 3 zones based upon the percentage of corridor user trips due to growth within each zone. The portion of developers share representing indirect benefit was distributed. between the A and B zones based upon the percentage of total trip ends on the transportation system within each zone. The fees for the A and B Zones, therefore, include a measure of both direct and indirect benefits received by each zone. Exhibits .VII and VIII show the method in which these calculations were made. 1Caltrans, TARTS 1976 Urban Rural Survey. -15- 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 B. Determination of Base Fee The cost attributable to future development must be reduced to a fee so that it may be apportioned in an equitable manner to specific types of development. Allocation of the cost on the basis of trip. end. generation by general land use category is proposed, where: cost apportioned to future development in the AOB zone _ cost /trip and trip end growth in the AOB zone SJHTC Zone A $97,856,774 . $74/TE 1,321,160 Zone B $67,643,330 $46/TE 1,462,093 F/ETC $133,096,091 a $80/TE 1,665;922 $117,131,975 . $43/TE 2,730,730 The data used in computing the average cost per trip end are summarized in Exhibit IX and X. The trip end generation factors used in the calculation were derived from the EMA Trip Generation Rates, shown in Exhibit XI. The projected growth in dwelling units was taken from the respective San Joaquin Bills and Foothill Transportation Corridor studies. Projected growth in industrial /commercial floor space was generated from MMTS II4 employment projections. 4Employment projects adopted by the Orange County Transportation Commission. -16- FEE PROGRAM SHARE OF CORRIDOR COST Total Corridor Developers Developers Costs ($) Share (8) Share (S) SJHTC Zone A 28.68 $ 97,856,775 Zone B 19.88 $ 67,643,330 Total $341,660,000 48.48 $165,500,105 F/ETC Zone A 25.88 $133,096,099 Zone B 22.7% $117,131,975 Total $516,147,000 48.58 $250,228,066 B. Determination of Base Fee The cost attributable to future development must be reduced to a fee so that it may be apportioned in an equitable manner to specific types of development. Allocation of the cost on the basis of trip. end. generation by general land use category is proposed, where: cost apportioned to future development in the AOB zone _ cost /trip and trip end growth in the AOB zone SJHTC Zone A $97,856,774 . $74/TE 1,321,160 Zone B $67,643,330 $46/TE 1,462,093 F/ETC $133,096,091 a $80/TE 1,665;922 $117,131,975 . $43/TE 2,730,730 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 Bills 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- 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 tot the non- residential land use category were a summation of more specific non - residential categories such as manufacturing, retail regional, neighborhood /community commercial, and office uses. The 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 8xhibit XI. Prior to the summation of the trip ends from each of the more specific nonresidential 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. Biany of the trip ends typically assigned to local retail uses are accounted for by these short trips arriving from and returning to residences. These residential - related trip ends actually provide savings in travel costs due to the short nature of the trip. Addi- tionally, neighborhood /community commercial development tends to reduce energy consumption and traffic impacts. Residential land uses receive sufficient benefit from construction of neighborhood /community commercial development to distribute a portion of the trip ends attributable to neighborhood /community commercial development to residential land uses. For this reason, 508 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 Trio 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 Aeighborhood /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- Once this adjustment was made, the fee program share of the total corridor cost. for each of the .three generalized land use categories was determined. The single - family residential and multi -unit residential share of the corridor cost was calculated first by multiplying the adjusted trip ends shown above by the appropriate cost per trip end as developed in Exhibits IX and X. The non- residential Share of the corridor cost was calculated by using the difference between the total fee program share and the total residential share of the 'corridor cost. The fee program share of corridor cost by generalized categories is: TABLE VIII -3 FEE PROGRAM SHARE BY LAND USE CATEGORY Once the fee program share of corridor cost by the three generalized land use categories was determined, a fee for each of these categories was determined by dividing each share by the appropriate number of residential units or area of buildings shown in Exhibits IX and X. Following is the final fee calculation for each of the three general land use categories for both A and B fee zones. TABLE 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.,r 31,621 units $1,305 /unit $1,305 /unit . yulti -unit residential $21,093,922 - 27,708 units $761 /unit $760 /unit Von - residential $35,497,862 it 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 v 34,389 units $589 /unit $590 /unit Von- residential $35,661,922 a 27,700,559 sf $1.29 /sf $1.30 /sf -18- Single Family Multi -Unit Total Residential Residential Non- Residential Developer's Share SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Zone A $41,264,990 $21,093,922 $35,497,862 $ 97,856;774 Zone B $11,727,056 $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 Once the fee program share of corridor cost by the three generalized land use categories was determined, a fee for each of these categories was determined by dividing each share by the appropriate number of residential units or area of buildings shown in Exhibits IX and X. Following is the final fee calculation for each of the three general land use categories for both A and B fee zones. TABLE 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.,r 31,621 units $1,305 /unit $1,305 /unit . yulti -unit residential $21,093,922 - 27,708 units $761 /unit $760 /unit Von - residential $35,497,862 it 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 v 34,389 units $589 /unit $590 /unit Von- residential $35,661,922 a 27,700,559 sf $1.29 /sf $1.30 /sf -18- L] Land Use Fee Calculation FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Zoh A 0 Rounded Fee Fee Single- family residential $71,836,800 - 55,502 units $1,294 /unit $1,295 /unit Multi -unit residential $17,299,040 - 22,911 units $755 /unit $755 /unit Non- residential $43,960,251 - 24,231,767 sf $1.81 /sf $1.80 /sf Zone 8 Single - family residential $49,186,840 - 53,651 units $917 /unit $920 /unit Multi -unit residential $19,015,503 - 35,558 units $535 /unit $535 /unit Non-residential $48,929632 - 46,616,669 fees 51.05 /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- 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 glin ®rating portions of airports, train stations, stadiums, spotte arenas, convention centers, bus terminals, hotels, or concessions on public lands. In the event construction of these facilities is an expansion of an existing use, the fee shall be determined based upon the net increase of building area. All disputes over application of fees to specific projects or disputes over exemptions of projects from fee requirements shall be presented to the Joint Powers Agency described in Section XIII of this report for resolution. Examples of fee calculations: 1. The fee for a development consisting of 100 single- family.detached units, 300 condo units and 25,000 s.f. of office and Neighborhood. Shopping Center uses would be: San Joacuin Hills AOB (Zone A (100 D.U. x $1305/D.U.) _ $ 130,500 (300 D.U. x $760/D.U.) _ $ 228,000 (25,000 S.F. x $1.75/S.F.) _ $ 43,750 Total fee for development if located in Zone A of SJHTC AOB = $ 402,250 Foothill /Eastern AOB (Zone B): (100 D.U. x 920/D.U.) _ $ 92,000 (300 D.U. x $535/0.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 = L278,750 2. Total fee for reconstruction of a.10,000 sf. office building to a 15,000 s.f: Neighborhood Shopping Center, would be calculated as follows: San Joaquin Hills AOB (Zone B): (5,000 s.f, x $1.30 /s.f.) _ $ 6,500 Total fee for development.if located in Zone A of SJHTC AOB _ 1 $ 61500 -20- Foothill/Eastern AOB (Zone A): (5,000 s.f. x $1.80 /s.f.) $ 9,000 Total fee for development if located in Zone A of Foothill/Eastern AOB a $ 9,000 IX. DEFERRAL of FEES rt is proposed that fees may be deferred for residential multi -unit rental., projects or projects which include State or Federal requirements to provide units affordable to families with incomes less than 808 of the median income (Section Vill housing). The deferral may be for a period of five years from the.issuance of building permits or the period of the State/Federal funding requirements beginning upon issuance of the first building permit. The fees to be paid shall be those in effect at the time of payment and shall be secured by an agreement and renewable letter of credit held by an escrow company, or cash or time certificate of deposit in the amount of fees plus 15 percent in anticipation of inflationary increases. X. CRITERIA FOR COLLECTION OF FEES The enabling ordinance provides for collection of fees as a condition of final map approval or issuance of building permits. Fees shall be collected prior to issuance of all building permits for new residential structures and commercial /industrial structures which establish new and enlarged floor space. Fees will not be required for remodeling or reconstructing existing structures to the same number of residential dwelling units or equal commercial building area. Fees will not be required for construction of retaining walls, patio covers, swimming pools or other non inhabitable residential structures. XI. DE`L40PMENT EXACTIONS & CREDITS Development Projects containing portions of transportation corridors within their boundaries shall be required by condition of approval of cities or County to accomplish the following: 1. Dedicate right- of-way in accordance with schematic plans approved by the Joint Powers Agency. 2.. Grade corridor right -of -way in accordance wit': schematic plans approved by the Joint Powers Agency and shown on the Tentative Tract,Hap 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- • 0 (closure of short gaps). Number of lanes required is to be based upon traffic generated by proposed project. 5. Participate, among other designated beneficiaries, in the San Joaquin Hills or Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor fee program., Subdivisions in which right -of -way, grading and improvements are required for the transportation corridors will be eligible for credit toward payment of the MT &B fees to the extent that the costs, are included in development of the fee program. Whenever subdivisions are conditioned to grade or improve portions of transportation corridors or dedicate right - of -way in ;excess of Major Arterial Highway Standards, and these costs exceed fees, the developer shall enter into an agreement prior to recordation of final tract or parcel maps to identify the difference in the dollar amount between the estimated costs of the grading, Improvements, and /or right -of -way, and the calculated fees. Such agreements will establish the amount of reimbursement for. which the subdivision is entitled. A developer shall be entitled to reimbursement for a period of fifteen (15) years after acceptance of improvements by.the appropriate legislative body. If the estimated costs of the grading, improvements, and /or excess right of way are less than the calculated fee, a developer may relinquish credits in lieu of paying. fees until credits are fully utilized with the remainder of the fee collected prior to issuance of building permits. In the event a development not requiring subdivision is conditioned. to construct or .grade portions of the transportation corridors or dedicate right -of -way, reimbursement agreements shall be executed prior to issuance of any building permits within the project boundaries. Developers will be allowed to apply credits earned on orie 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, stabilisation, hydroseeding and erosion control at the. following combined rates: Corridor Segment Credit Rate SAN JOAQUIN RILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Jamboree to Station 511 +50 Station 511 +50 to Moulton Parkway Moulton Parkway to Paseo de Colinas F'OOTRILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Foothill/Eastern Corridor $149,784 per acre road easement $124,132 pet acre road easement $124,915 per acre road easement $137,060 per acre road easement The term road easement as used above includes the entire area within right - of-way (hinge point to hinge point) excluding slope and drainage easements. The credit values furthermore include percentages or, work estimated for engineering, administration and contingencies for the respective transportation corridors. 4. Drainage Structures Credit will be given for drainage structures in accordance with lengths of pipe and unit prices estimated as costs in the fee program or for as -built structures which the Director, $MA 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 158 for engineering, and administration plus 10% for contingencies. The credit rates specified above will be revised whenever the corridor costs estimates are revised for the purpose of adjusting fees. Once -23- i 9 fee credits are established by an executed reimbursement agreement, no further adjustments will be made to those credit 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 Soard of Supervisors and City Councils for fees to be automatically adjusted based upon an approved construction cost index. Updated project cost estimates, substantial changes in general plan land use elements, or other pertinent information may also be cause for adjustment by the Board of Supervisors and City Councils. In the event an annual evaluation of the fee programs causes fees to be reduced for any reasons, reimbursements will not be considered for fees already paid. XIII. CITY PARTICIPATION IN FEE PROGRAM There are twelve different cities within the proposed areas of benefit for the Foothill/Pastern 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 County will be deposited with each JPA for the purposes of designing and constructing the corridors. The JPA will be responsible for administering fees collected under this fee program including any reimbursements called for in reimbursement agreements identified in Section XI of this report. KRM:1tDT20 -4 -24- 6/21/85 LEGEND AREA OF '.BENEFIT SAN JOAOLIAIr HILLS "RG OF DULY ""�" ""`" D` �fl" DRflY INDEX MAP . FOOTHILUEASTERN MiNS ' fO � ' rn SPDnBEKflEF17 90UNT"pDx CORMOR WITH CITY BOUNDARIES TRANSPORTATOW CORRIDORS IEE I@$ ewrvD.nf EXHIBIT 1 -25- i 2 EXHIBIT Il 3 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 4 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 5 April 21, 1982 6 On motion of Supervisor Wieder, duly seconded and carried, the 7 following Resolution was adopted: 8 WHEREAS, development of lands is occurring which contributes 9 directly to the need for transportation corridors; and 10 WHEREAS, said development may obstruct future right -of -way for 11 the transportation corridors; and 12 WHEREAS, development benefitting from implementation of the 13 transportation corridors should contribute toward the cost generally 14 in proportion to the need generated; and :; 15 WHEREAS, right -of -way for the transportation should be protected Yyy ty� 16 as development occurs; and 00 17 WHEREAS, grading should be accomplished, whenever possible, in V 18 conjunction with the grading and development of surrounding property; 19 and 20 WHEREAS,.implementation of logical increments of .the corridor. 21 1 should occur in conjunction with the land development process whenever 22 the transportation needs of that development require those facilities 23 for access; and 24 WHEREAS, development policies for the implementation of the 25 transportation corridor will provide a basis for planning of future 26 development and serve as notice to the public as to the future N ry 27 locations of the corridors; 26 '2G:dh Resolution No. 82 -598 Transportation Corridors Development Policy -26- I I t,011, '2 ii- :r ORE, BE iT 1+E5OLVED that as a condition of approval i 2 of subdivisions containing within their boundaries portions of 3 transportation corridors shown on the Transportation Element of the 4 County General Plan the developer shall: 5 1. Dedicate right -of -Way to County. 6 2. Grade corridor right -of -way in accordance with schematic 7 plans approved on the tentative map and.rough grading plans approved g by the Director, EMA. 9 3. Construct arterial overcrossings for internal arterials. 10 Width of overcrossing structure (i.e., number of travel lanes) is to 11 be determined based upon vehicular and pedestrian traffic generated 12 1 by the proposed project. 131 4. Construct corridor travel lanes and interchange ramps 14 required immediately for access to proposed development or system IS continuity (closure of short gaps). Number of lanes required is to b� °W 4 16 based upon traffic generated by proposed project. V y . Z °;` 17 5. Participate, among other designated beneficiaries, in any V0 IS .established corridor development fee program. Costs incurred pursuan, 19 to-Conditions 2 through 4 shall be creditable against fees. Costs 20 incurred pursuant to Condition 1 shall be creditable against fees to 21 the extent that the devel,op:r -a t fee program includes said right- of -ua} 22 1 cost. 23 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that EMA is hereby directed to amend, 24 appropriate sections of the Subdivision and zoning Codes to implement 25 this policy. 26 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that EMA is hereby directed to incorporate M N 4 27 in General Plan amendment elements, zoning actions, area plans and ® 28 site plans recommendations appropriate for implementing this policy. -27- • • i 1 'oE IT RESOLVED that EPA is hereby directed to begin! 2 analyzing potential areas of benefit as an adjunct to the Orange.County/ 31 Orange County Transportation Commission Transportation Finance Study. 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that affected cities be requested to adopt i similar policies. i 6 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that EMA is hereby directed to proceed i expeditiously with the establishment of a fee program. 8 9 10 1.1 1 13 14 W n 11 z: 15 v o � ,W 16 ou 17 W 18�AYE5: SUPERVISORS ]L — R —IETT M. i4IEDER, RALPH B. CLARK, AND ROGER R. STANITO% 19 NOES: SUPERVISOPS 19ON'E D ABSENT: SUPERVISORS BRUCE N-ESTA-IDE .AND THOMAS F. RILEY 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 22 "I ; ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 23 I, JUNE ALEXANDER, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California 24 4hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly an21 regyllar9yY adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st.�ddy'•of April':. , 29 1982 and passed by a unanimous vote of said ol�ar—rpmsnbers"present:._.�) 26 I� IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 21st " day of tZ Fwril , 19 82 = . 28 o �-..UN �„L XAN F Clerk of the Board of Su perv, isnrs of Orange County,Cd1 -28- iforn' q§ 0 0 LEGEND > ro.o AREA OF INFLUENCE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS s.0 a.-7.-.9 FOR CORRIDOR USERS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR 4.0-5.9 (BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF USER TRIPS) EXHIBIT Zq_ LEGEND > 1 0.0 LO 6.0-9.9 O 6.0-7.s O� a.0 -s.9 1 < 4.0 AREA OF INFLUENCE FOR CORRIDOR USERS (BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF USER TRIPS) FOOTHILUEASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR EXHIBIT IV -30- F e 5A10 JOAOUIN HILLS A AREA OF BENEFIT I .t zoaE A LEGEND ARE. BF Ef'{F° BOUIMIRI AREA OF BENEFIT FEE ME BUUNBWY - - I 0 SAN JOAQLNN . HILLS' TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR EXHIBIT V' -3h H.i Ifer ZONE\' 1 ^§Y xN ZONf , A", j f, %y �.• f ,� r rte, i ki. LEGEND I' nu m°m.. rn r3oarauux taBmuae' rE: Inn_ BW04AT FOOTHILL/.EASTERN AREA OF BENEFIT ZONE l ZONE A 'sas•> n roI w�'"�� y�. ZONE . e • ? r f e sc Er. y FOOTHILL/EASTERN AREA OF BENEFIT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS EXHIBIT V 32 EXHIBIT VII Page 1 of 2 FEE PROGPM 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 118004 210,188 93,549 186,487 81.70% 70.298 63.44% 42.888 19.088 38.044 35.038 13.418 24.138 lPercent corridor TE due to growth trip ends due to growth Total Trip Ends 2Percent corrider users TE by zone Total trip ends per zone Summation of total trip ends 3Percent corridor users TE due to growth = Percent TE due to growth x percent corridor users TE by zone DT20 -19 -33- EXHIBIT VII Page 2 of 2 FEE PROGRAM SHARE OFTOTALCORRIDOR COST SAN-JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR - - - 8 Corridor.Users TE Zone Due to Growth Direct Benefit Indirect Benefit Fee Program Share Growth in Trip ends A 35.038 $ 73,006,934 $ 24,849,841 $ 97,856,775 1,321,160 B 13.418 $ 27,948,130 $ 39,695,200 $ 67,643,330 1,462,093 Total 48.448 $100,955,064 $ 64,545,041 $165,500,105 2,783,253 1. Total Corridor Cost = $341,660,000. 2. Fee Program share 48.448 x $341,660,000 $165,500,105 r i 3. Direct.Benefit 618 x $165,500,105 $100,955,064 4. Indirect Benefit 398 x $165,500,105 = $64,545,041 5. Zone A Share Direct Benefit 35.038 x $341,660,000 x 61% _ $ 73,006,934 Indirect Benefit 38.58* x $64,545,041 = $ 24,849,841 Subtotal $ 97,856,775. 6. Zone B Share Direct Benefit 13.41% x $341;660,000 x 618 = $ 27,948,130 Indirect Benefit 61.58* x $64,545,041 = $ 39,695,200 Subtotal $ 67,643,330 Total Fee Program Share $165,500,105 *8 Total system trip ends within A & B Zones DT20-20 Fee $74/TE i $46/TE $59/TE (Ave.) E)(HIBIT VIII Page 1 of 2 FEE PROGMA SHARE OF TOTAL CORRIDOR COST FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Trip End Analysis (Trip ends due to growth) 199,922 83,612 Outside (Total trip ends) Zone A Zone B A(% Corridor User Trips With One or Both Ends In Zone 88.088 72.668 66.058 (Percent corridor users TE by Zone)2 Trips beginning and ending in zone 19.688. 41.528 (Percent corridor (Trips due to growth) 27,922 9,322 20,555 (Total trips) 28,200 111657 37,307 In /Out Trips (Trips due to growth) 68,629 31,320 64,217 (Total trips) 80,763 46;004 88,512 Out /In,Trips (Trips due to growth) 75,449 33,648 55,069 (Total trips) 89,823 45,760 79,696 Trip End Analysis (Trip ends due to growth) 199,922 83,612 160,396 (Total trip ends) 226,986 115,078 242,822 (Percent corridor TE due to growth)1 88.088 72.668 66.058 (Percent corridor users TE by Zone)2 38.188 19.688. 41.528 (Percent corridor users TE due to growth)3 34.188 14.308 27.428 1Percent corridor TE due to growth = trip ends due to growth Total Trip Ends 2Percent corrider 'users.TE by zone Total trip ends per zone Summation of total trip ends 3Percent corridor users TE due to growth = Percent TE due to growth x percent corridor users TE by zone DT20 -19 -35 -. EXHIBIT VIII Page 2 of 2 FEE.PROGRAM SHARE OF.TOTAL CORRIDOR COST FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR $ Corridor .Users TE Direct .indirect Fee Program Growth in Zone Due to Growth Benefit Benefit Share Trip ends Fee A 34.188 $107,615,617 $ 25,480,474 $133,096,091 1,665,922 $80/TE • B 14.30% $ 45,023,503 $ 72,108,472 $117,131,975 2,730,731 $43/TE Total 48.488 $152,639,120 $ 97,588,946 $250,228,066 4,396,653 $57/TE (Ave.) 1. Total Corridor Cost = $516,147,000 i 2. Fee Program share = 48.489 x $516,147,000 $250,228,066 3. Direct Benefit 618 x $250,228,066 $152,639,120 4. Indirect Benefit 398 x $250,228,066 = $97,588,946 5. Zone A Share Direct Benefit 34.188 x $516,147,000 x 618'= $107,615,617 Indirect Benefit 26.118* x $97,588,946 = $ 25,480,474 Subtotal $133,096,091 . 6. Zone B Share Direct Benefit 14.308 x $516,147,000 x 618 $ 45,023,503 Indirect Benefit 73.898* x $97,588,946 = $ 72,108,472 Subtotal $117,131,975 Total Fee Program Share $250,228,066 *8 Total system trip ends within A & B Zones DT20-20 • EXHIBIT IX COST PER 'PRIP END ANALYSIS SAN JOAQUIN HILLS DT20-21 • . Zone A .Zone D Projected Growth In Dwelling Units Single Dwelling Units (SDU) 31,621 _ 11,614 Multiple Dwelling Units (MDU) 27,708 34,389 Projected Growth In Industrial/Commercial Floor Space Manufacturing Floor Space (Sq. Ft.) 5,659,168 6,701,072 Retail -Regional Floor Space (Sq. Ft.) 1,496,000 5,826,375 Retail -Local* Floor Space (Sq. Ft.) 4,488,000 5,252,625 Office/Other Floor Space (Sq. Ft.) 8,378,017 9,920,487 Total Floor Space (Sq. Ft.). 20,021,185 27,700,559 Trip End Growth By Landuse Trip Rate Factors SDU (12 T.E./D.U.) 379,452 139,368 MDU (7 T.E./D.U.) 193,956 240,723 Manufacturing (10 T.E./ksf) 56,592 67,011 Retail -Regional (50 T.E./ksf) 74,800 291,319 Retail -Local* (100 T.E./ksf) 448,800 525,262 Office/Other (20 T.E./ksf) 167,560 198,410. Total Trip Ends 1,321,160 1,462,093 New Development Share of Total Corridor Costs $ 97,856,774 $ 67,643,330 Average Cost per Trip End Cost in 1984 Dollars $ 74(1) $ 46(2) *Same as neighborhood/community commercial (1) $97,856,774 a 1,321,.160 TE_ _ $74.07/Trip End; say $74/Trip End (2) $67-,643,330 a 1,462,093 TE _ $46.26/Trip End; say $46/Trip End DT20-21 • EXHIBIT x COSTPERTRIP END ANALYSIS FOOTHILL/EASTERN Zone A Zone B Projected Growth In Dwelling Units Single Dwelling Units (SDU) 55,502 53,651 Multiple. Dwelling Units (MDU) 22,911 35,558 • Projected Growth In Industrial/Commercial Floor Space Manufacturing Floor Space (Sq. Ft.) 7,680,998 13,439,465 Retail -Regional Floor Space (Sq. Ft.) 1,598,875 3,852,125 Retail -Local* Floor Space (Sq. Ft.) 4,796,625 11,556,375 Office/Other Floor Space (Sq. Ft.) 10,155,269 17,768,704 Total Floor Space (Sq. Ft.), 24,231,767 46,616,669 Trip End Growth By Landuse Trip Rate Factors SDU (12 T.E./D.U.) 666,024 643,812 MDU (7 T.E./D.U.) 160,377 248,906 Manufacturing (10 T.E./ksf) 76,810 134,395 Retail -Regional (50 T.E./ksf) 79,944 192,606 Retail -Local* (100 T.E./ksf) T.E./kaf) 479,662 203,105 1,155,638 355,374 • Office/Other (20 Total Trip Ends 1,665,922 2,730,731 New Development Share of Total Corridor Costs $133,096,091 $117,1311973 Average Cost per Trip End - - - Cost in 1982 Dollars S 79(1) $ 44(2) *Same as neighborhood/community commercial (1) $133,096,091 1,665,922 s $79.89/Trip End; say $80/Trip End (2) $117,131,975 s 2,730,731 - $42.89/Trip End; say $43/Trip End DT20-21 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, purposee by..the Environmental Management Agency. These rates have been compiled from a variety of sources, including County conducted studies, and are deemed representative of land uses within Orange County. "TE /Ksf" is an abbreviation for trip ends per thousand square feet of gross building floor area. "TE /Acre" refers to trip ends per developed acre. Land Use TE/Rsf 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 Motel Resort Hotel (TRC Use) RECREATIONAL Neighborhood Park Regional Park State Park Mar ins Beach Golf Course Campground Tennis Club Raquetball Club INSTITUTION Elementary School Junior High School High School Junior College Church - Weekday Church - Sunday. Library -39- 300 6 5 1 9 26 10 TE/Room 9 TE/Room 18 TE /Room 4 TE/Berth 350 TE /1000' Shore S TE /Campsite 43 TE /Court 31 TE /Court 1.0 TE /Student' 0.9 TE /Student 1.4 TE /Student 1.5.TE /S.tudent 47 60 80 0o 19 60 44 135 42 310 10 TE/Room 9 TE/Room 18 TE /Room 4 TE/Berth 350 TE /1000' Shore S TE /Campsite 43 TE /Court 31 TE /Court 1.0 TE /Student' 0.9 TE /Student 1.4 TE /Student 1.5.TE /S.tudent XRS:desDT20 -22 -40- 6/11/85 TE /Acre TE /Other 200 14 TE/6ed 3 TE/Bed 240 40 550 500 900 1250 400 750 TE /Station EXHIBIT XI page 2 of 2 r Land Use TE/RSf MEDICAL 8oepital 18 Nursing Home OFFICE General Office 15 Medical Office 75 Research Center 10 RETAIL Discount Store 65 Hardware/Home Improvement 50 Shopping Center - Regional 50 ( 30 Acres) Shopping Center - Community 70 (10 -30 Acres) Shopping Center - Neighborhood 135 ( 10 Acres) Restaurant - Quality (i.e., Velvet Turtle, 110 Hungry Tiger, etc.) Restaurant - High Turnover (is., Bob's, 350 Denny's, etc.) Restaurant - Fast Food (i.e., MacDonald's, 900 Carl's Jr., etc.) Automobile Sales Service Station Supermarket 125 Convenience Market (i.e., 7 -11, 550 Stop & Go, etc.) SERVICES Bank - Walk In 180 Bank - Drive In 195 Savings and Loan - Walk In 65 Savings.and Loan - Drive In 75 XRS:desDT20 -22 -40- 6/11/85 TE /Acre TE /Other 200 14 TE/6ed 3 TE/Bed 240 40 550 500 900 1250 400 750 TE /Station JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY /p- 2l - ss- /497 �/ I/ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page RECITALS.... i ....................................... 1 I DEFINITIONS ... ............................... 4 II PURPOSE AND POWERS .................... .... 6 2.1 Agency Created........ ............ 6 2.2 Purpose of the Agreement; Common . Powers to be Exercised.................. 6 2.3 Powers .................................. 7 III ORGANIZATION .. ................. ........... 8 3.1 Membership .............................. 8 3.2 Names.. • ......................... 9 3.3 Board of Directors ...... ....... ..... 9 3.4 Principal Office ........................ 11 3.5 Meetings . ............................... 11 3.6 Quorum..... .......................... 11 3.7 Powers and Limitations Thereon........ 11 3.8 Minutes ................................. 12 3.9 Rules.......... .... ................ 12 3.10 Vote or Assent of Parties ............... 12 3.11 Officers . ............................... 12 3.12 Committees.. ....... ........... 13 3.13 Additional Officers and Employees....... 14 3.14 Bonding Requirement.. .. ............. 14 3.15 Status of Officers and Employees........ 14 IV CONTRIBUTIONS... . .. .... ......... 15 4.1 Imposition of Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Construction. Fee by Members...... 15 4.2 Annual Review of Fees................... 16 4.3 Payment.. ........ 16 4.4 Compensation of Agency for Acquisition of Rights -of- Way............ 17 V RELATIONS WITH OTHER MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE AGENCIES.. ....... ... ... 18 5.1 Joint Action with Other Agencies........ 18 5.2 Communications Between Corridor Agencies.. . ... .. • .......... 18 5.3 Lending and Borrowing of Funds Between Agencies ........................ 19 (i) VI BUDGETS AND DISBURSEMENTS .................... 19 6.1 Annual Budget ........................... 19 6.2 Disbursements ..................... .... 19 6.3 Accounts..... . .... .�:......... 20 6.4 Expenditures Within Approved Annual Budget ... ............................... 20 6.5 Audit ................................... 20 6.6 Reimbursement of Funds .................. 21 VII SECURITIES ................................... 21 7.1 Securities .............................. 21 VIII LIABILITIES :. .............................. 22 8.1 Liabilities.... ....... .. . . ... ....... 22 ... 8.2 Hold Harmless and Indemnity ............. 22 IX ADMISSION AND WITHDRAWAL OF PARTIES.......... 23 9.1 Admission of New Parties ................ 23 9.2 Withdrawal .............................. 23 X TERMINATION AND DISPOSITION OF ASSETS........ 25 10.1 Termination. .......... .. ....... 25 10.2 Distribution of . and • Funds...... 26 XI MISCELLANEOUS . ............................... 27 11.1 Amendments............ ............... 27 11.2 Notice ........... . .................... 27 11.3 Effective Date .......................... 27 11.4 Arbitration ............................. 27 11.5 Partial Invalidity .... .......... .... 29 11.6 Successors ............... 0.............. 29 11.7 Assignment .............................. 30 11.8 Execution ............................... 30 (ii) 0 0 JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING THE.SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the day of 1985, by and between five or more of the following public agencies: (a) County of Orange (b) City of Costa Mesa (c) City of Irvine (d) City of Laguna Beach (e) City of Newport Beach (f) City of San Clemente (g) City of San Juan Capistrano (h) City of Santa Ana R E C I T A L S: A. The California State Legislature adopted Chapter 708, Statutes 1984, adding Section 66484.3 to the Government Code authorizing the County of Orange and any city within the County of Orange to require by ordinance the payment of a fee as a condition of approval of a final map or as a condition of issuing a building permit, for the purpose of defraying the actual or estimated cost of constructing bridges over waterways, railways, freeways, and canyons or constructing major thoroughfares. B. The parties to this Agreement have territory within or related to that area known as the San Joaquin Hills Trans- • 9 portation Corridor and desire to impose such a fee pursuant to Government Code Section 66484.3 in order to finance the planning, acquisition and construction of major thoroughfares and bridges in the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor.. The parties hereto have the common power to conduct such transportation planning, .financing and construction. C. It has been determined by the parties hereto that it is in the best interests of the respective parties to join together to administer the funds provided by these fee pro- grams, and to plan, acquire and construct said thoroughfares and bridges. D. Each of the parties is authorized to contract with each other for the joint exercise of any common power under Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California. E. The parties hereto recognize that, in order to serve the purposes stated herein, the impositicn of fees in excess of the above - described fees should not be required or recommended as a condition to any annexation, incorporation or other reorganization involving territory claimed or con- trolled by the parties hereto. F. The parties hereto recognize that, in order to serve the purposes stated herein, additional funding other than that received from the above - described fees must be obtained. Each party has agreed to cooperate in obtaining additional financing, including, but not limited to, debt -2- financing, assessment districts, special legislation, Arteri- al Highway Financing program funds and other forms of govern -. mental grants -in -aid. G. The parties hereto enter into this Agreement with the express understanding that the acquisition of rights-of- way and similar ,property interests necessary for the construction of transportation facilities pursuant to this Agreement shall be accomplished at little or no expense to the members hereto or to the Agency created hereunder. However, it is recognized by the parties hereto that prior to the execution of this Agreement, the County of Orange, as the sole responsible party for the administration of the Orange County Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program, may have obligated fees to be collected under said program for the acquisition of certain rights of way located in the City of Laguna Beach (Sycamore Hills) and in the area of Tentative Tract Map No. 8965 not available for dedication, and these obligations shall be assumed by the Agency. H. The parties hereto recognize that in accordance with the principles of sound community planning, future land use decisions should not upset the balance between land use intensity and adequate transportation facilities. I. It is anticipated by the parties hereto that any major thoroughfares or bridges constructed pursuant to this Agreement shall comport with those standards for scenic highways set forth in Streets and Highways Code Section 261. -3- J. It is anticipated by the parties hereto that the public agency created pursuant to this.:Agreement shall termi- nate upon the effective date of the inclusion of the trans- portation facilities constructed pursuant to this Agreement in the California State Highway System, as defined and governed by Division 1 of-the Streets and Highways Code. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained; the parties hereto agree as follows: I DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Agreement, the following words shall have the following meanings: a. "Agreement" means this Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. b. "Agency" means the SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPOR- TATION CORRIDOR AGENCY formed pursuant to this Agreement. C. "Annual Budget" means the approved budget applicable to the expenses of administration of the Agency. d. "Board" means the governing body of the Agency.. e. "Ex Officio Members" means Board members who do not have a vote in Agency matters and whose presence -4- i shall not be counted in determining whether a quorum sufficient to transact Agency business exists. f., "Executive Director" means the chief operating employee selected by the Board to manage the day -to -day activities of the Agency, including, but not limited to, the appointment and removal of all employees of the Agency except those described in Section 3.11 below. The Executive Director shall not be an employee of any individual member of the Agency. g. "Fiscal Year" means July 1st to and including the following June 30th. h. "Members" or "Board Members" means those persons serving as members of the Board .or, their alternates. i. "Party" means each of the parties which becomes a signatory to this Agreement, accepting the rights and obligations of the Agency hereunder, including any public entity executing an addendum of the original agreement as hereinafter provided. j. "Quarter" means July 1st to and including September 30th, October 1st to and including December 31st, January 1st to and including March 31 and April 1st to and including June 30th. -5- II PURPOSE AND POWERS 2.1 Agency Created. There is hereby created a public entity to be known as the "SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY." The Agency is formed by this Agreement pursuant to the provi- sions of Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California. The Agency shall be a public entity separate from the parties hereto. 2.2 Purpose of the Agreement; Common Powers to be Exer- cised. Each member has the common power to plan for, acquire, construct, maintain, repair, manage, operate, and control facilities for one or more of the following purposes: a. The financing of and the imposing of fees for the planning and construction of major thoroughfares and bridges; b. The power to plan for, acquire, and construct environmentally - sensitive thoroughfares and bridges to conform to the technical standards of the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), whenever possible. The purpose of this Agreement is to jointly exer- cise the foregoing common powers to undertake such studies and planning relative to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor as may be necessary to establish areas of benefit, -6- • i to recommend to its members the adoption of local ordinances and the undertaking of all acts necessary for the imposition of fees by those members pursuant to Government Code Section 66484.3 and to fund, plan, acquire, and construct the major thoroughfares and bridges in the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The Agency shall not maintain or operate, or incur liability for the maintenance or operation of the facilities constructed pursuant to this Agreement. Board planning policy shall respond to those memoranda' of understanding and various minute orders and policy state- ments adopted by each party to this Agreement, attached hereto collectively as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. 2.3 Powers. The Agency shall have the power in its own name to do any of the following: a. To exercise jointly the common powers. of its members in studying and planning ways and means to provide for the design, financing, and constructing of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor;. b. To make and enter into contracts; C. To contract for the serviges of engineers, attorneys, planners, financial consultants, and separate and apart therefrom to employ such other persons, as it deems necessary; d. To appoint agents; -7- e. To lease, acquire, construct, manage, main- tain, and operate any buildings, works, or improvements; f: To acquire, hold, and dispose of property by eminent domain, lease, lease purchase or sale; g.. To incur debts, liabilities, or obligations subject to limitations herein set forth; h. To receive gifts, contributions and donations of property, funds, services and other forms of finan- cial assistance from persons, firms, corporations and any governmental entity; i. To sue and be sued in its own name; j. To apply for an appropriate grant or grants under any federal, state, or local programs for .assis- tance in developing any of its programs; k. To adopt rules, regulations, policies, bylaws and procedures governing the operation of the Agency; and 1. To the extent not herein specifically provided for, to exercise any powers in the manner and according to the methods provided under applicable laws.. III ORGANIZATION 3.1 Membership. The parties to the Agency shall be each public entity which has executed or hereafter executes this Agree- ment, or any addenda, amendment, :or supplement thereto, and i • which has not, pursuant to the provisions hereof, withdrawn therefrom. 3.2 Names. The names, particular capacities and addresses of the parties at any time shall be shown on Exhibit "B" attach- ed hereto, as amended or supplemented from time to time. 3.3 Board of Directors. a. The Board of Directors shall consist of the following: (i) one voting member from each of the fol- lowing entities which have become members of the Agency pursuant to Section 3.1 above: the cities of Costa Mesa, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano and Santa Ana. (ii) two voting members from the County of Orange (in the event that the County of Orange becomes a member of the Agency pursuant to Section 3.1 above),, said members to be the duly elected supervisors for the Third and Fifth County of Orange Supervisorial Dis- tricts, or their alternates. (iii) one ex officio member representing the California Department of Transportation and one ex offi- cio member representing the Orange County Transportation Commission. The Board may, from time to time appoint additional ex officio members. -9- b. Except for ex officio members, each member of the Board shall be a current member of the legislative body such member represents. C. Each participating member shall also have an alternate, who must also be a current member of the legislative body of the party such alternate represents with the exception of the alternates to the members representing the County of Orange. The name of the alternate member shall be on file with the Board. An alternate member shall assume all rights and duties of the absent member. d. Each member and alternate shall hold office from the first meeting of the Board after appointment by the city council or Board of Supervisors until a succes- sor is named. Members and alternates shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of their appointing body .and may be removed at any time, with or without cause, at the sole discretion of the legislative body of the party such member represents. e. A board member shall receive only such com- pensation from the Agency for his services as may be approved by not less than two - thirds (2/3) of the members of the Board. f. A board member may be reimbursed for expenses incurred by such member in the conduct of the business of the Agency. -10- s � 3.4 Principal Office. The principal office of the Agency shall be estab- lished by the Board and shall be located within the County of Orange. The Board is hereby granted full power and authority to change said principal office from one location to another in the County of Orange. Any change shall be noted by the secretary under this section but shall not be considered an amendment to this Agreement. 3.5 Meetings. The.Board shall meet at the principal office of the Agency or at such other place as may be designated by the Board. The time and place of regular meetings of the Board shall be determined by resolution adopted by the Board; a copy of such resolution shall be furnished to each party hereto. Regular, adjourned, and special meetings shall be called and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Sections 54950 et seq., as it may be amended. 3.6 Quorum. Not less than two - thirds of the members shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of the transaction of business relating to the Agency. 3.7 Powers and Limitations Thereon. All of the powers and authority of the Agency shall be exercised by the Board, subject however, to the reserved rights of the parties as herein set forth. Unless otherwise -11- t provided herein, each member or participating alternate shall be entitled to one vote, and except as otherwise provided herein, a vote of the majority of those present and qualified to vote may adopt any motion, resolution, or order and take any other action they deem appropriate to carry forward the objectives of the Agency. 3.8 Minutes. The secretary of the Agency shall cause to be kept minutes of regular, adjourned regular, and special meetings of the Board, and shall cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each member and to each of the members hereto. 3.4 Rules. The Board may adopt from time to time such rules and regulations for the conduct of its affairs consistent with this Agreement. 3.10 Vote or Assent of Parties. The vote, assent, or approval of parties in any matter requiring such vote, assent or approval hereunder shall be evidenced by a certified copy of the action of the governing body of such party filed with the Agency. It shall be the responsibility of the Executive Director to obtain certified copies of said actions. 3.11 Officers. There shall be selected from the membership of the Board, a chairman and a vice chairman. The Board shall appoint a secretary who may be a member.. The Board shall -12- appoint an officer or employee of the Board or an officer or employee of a member public agency to hold the offices of treasurer and auditor for the,Agency. Such offices may be held by separate officers or employees or may be combined and held by one such officer or employee, as provided by the Board. Such person or persons shall possess the powers of, and shall perform the treasurer and auditor functions for, the Agency and perform those functions required by Government Code Sections 6505, 6505.5, and 6505.6, including any subsequent amendments thereto. The chairman, vice chairman, and secretary shall hold office for a period of one year commencing July lst of each and every fiscal year; provided, however, the first chairman, vice chairman, and secretary appointed shall hold office from the date of appointment to June 30th of the ensu- ing fiscal year. Except for the Executive Director, any officer, employee, or agent of the Board may also be an officer, employee, or agent of any of the members. The appointment by the Board of such a person shall be evidence that the two positions are compatible. 3.12 Committees. The Board may, as it deems appropriate, appoint committees to accomplish the purposes set forth herein. Any meeting of such a committee shall be deemed to be a meeting of the Agency for compensation purposes only and all such meetings of the Agency shall be open to all members. -13- 0 • 3.13 Additional Officers and Employees. The Board shall have the power, upon the approval of not less than two - thirds (2/3) of its members, to appoint such additional officers and to employ such employees and assistants as may be appropriate. Such officers and employees may also be, but are not required to be, officers and employees of the individual members. 3.14 Bonding Requirement. The officers or persons who have charge of, handle, or have access to any property of the Agency shall be the members of the Board, the treasurer, the auditor, and any other officers or persons to be designated or empowered by the Board. Each such officer or person shall be required to file an official bond with the Board in an amount which shall be established by the Board. Should the existing .bond or bonds of any such officer be extended to cover the obliga- tions provided herein, said bond shall be the official bond required herein. The premiums on any such bonds attributable to the coverage required herein shall be appropriate expenses of the Agency: 3.15 Status of Officers and Employees. All of the privileges and immunities from liabil- ity, exemption from laws, ordinances and rules, all pension, relief, disability, worker's compensation, and other benefits which apply to the activity of officers, agents, or employees of any of the members when performing their respective func- -14- 0 0 tions shall apply to them to the same degree and extent while engaged in the performance of any of the functions and other duties under this Agreement. None of the officers, agents, or employees appointed by the Board shall be deemed, by rea- son of their employment by the Board, to be employed by any of the members or, by reason of their employment by the Board, to be subject to any of the requirements of such members. IV 4.1 Imposition of Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Con- struction Fee by Parties. On or before the effective date of this Agreement (or, in the case of a new party, on or before that party becomes signatory to this Agreement), each party shall require by ordinance or resolution the payment of a fee as a condition of issuing building permits, for the purposes of defraying the actual or estimated cost of constructing major thoroughfares and bridges, in accordance with California Government Code Section 66484.3. Said fee shall be in the form, and in those amounts set -forth in the "Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program For the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and Foothill /Eastern Transportation Corridors," attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated by reference herein. The imposition of said fee by each -15- • 1 party shall be a condition precedent to that party's par- ticipation in the Agency. 4.2 Annual Review of Fees.' At least once annually, the Board:shall undertake a review of the above - described fee program and may, upon approval of not less than two thirds (2/3) of its members, modify the fee to be imposed by the parties hereto. The legislative body of each party shall impose said revised fee within one hundred twenty (120) days, and if a party fails to impose said fees, repeals the enabling ordinance or fee, requirement, or otherwise disables itself from the collection and remittance of said fees to the Agency, on the effective date of any such action or upon expiration of the aforemen -. tioned time period, whichever is sooner, such action shall be deemed the withdrawal of that party from the Agency, subject to the conditions specified in Section 9.2 below. 4.3 Payment. Each party agrees to contribute said fees to the Agency in quarterly payments. In addition, the Board, upon approval of not less than two - thirds (2/3) of its members, may assess each party of the Agency an amount in excess of the amount of said fees collected by that party in order to meet overhead and other administrative expenses specified in the annual budget. For the purposes of this Agreement, the "contribution" of each party shall include the corridor fees imposed pursuant to this Agreement, any excess amounts -16- • r assessed to the party by the Board, and any voluntary contri- butions made to the Agency by the party. The contribution of each party of the Agency specified herein shall be due and payable sixty (60) days after receipt of billing therefore from the Agency. The Board may authorize an audit of: any party to determine whether said contributions accurately reflect each party's obligations under this Agreement. Unpaid contributions shall bear interest at a rate to be determined by the Board. In the event that any party fails to remit said contributions to the Agency, said failure may be deemed by the Board to be a withdrawal of that party from the Agency. In the event that any dispute arises as to the amount of fees assessed any person under the fee program, any aggrieved person may appeal the decision of a party hereto regarding the appropriate amount of the assessment to the Agency, which decision shall be final. In the event that any party hereto becomes a party to litigation regarding the legality of the fee program, the Board, where it deems appropriate, may defend such action or lend other assistance to.said party in said action. 4.4 Compensation.of Agency for Acquisition of Rights - of -Way. When it is within its power to do so, each party shall be individually responsible for the acquisition by dedication pursuant to Title 7, Division 2 of the Government . -17- 0 Code of rights -of -way and similar property interests within its territory which are necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement. Except as provided for in Recital G of this Agreement, in the event that a party fails to acquire these rights -of -way by the above - mentioned means after the route alignment for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is established and accepted by the Agency, that party shall compensate the Agency for all costs (including attorneys.' fees) incurred by the Agency in acquiring said property interests. V RELATIONS WITH OTHER MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE AGENCIES 5.1 Joint Action with Other Agencies. In the event that other major thoroughfare and bridge fee agencies are formed for the purpose of planning, coordinating, acquiring, constructing, maintaining, repair- ing, managing, operating and controlling major thoroughfares and bridges in the Foothill and Eastern Transportation Corri- dors or other transportation corridors, the Board is author- ized to make or perform any agreement to join with said agencies in the planning and implementation. of. said thoroughfares and bridges, when it is deemed appropriate. 5.2 Communications Between Corridor Agencies. In the event that the agencies described in Section 5.1 above are formed,, the chairman or his designate shall -18- meet with the chairmen, or their designates, of said agencies at least quarterly, for the purpose of coordinating the plan- ning, financing and construction activities of the various agencies. 5.3 Lending and Borrowing of Funds Between Agencies. When it is found to be beneficial to the purposes of the Agency and the general purpose of improving transpor- tation facilities in Orange County, the Board is authorized to lend and borrow available funds and services to the agencies described in Section 5.1 above, upon the approval of not less than two thirds (2/3) of the members of the Board. The Board shall specify the date and manner in which the funds or services shall be repaid and may provide for the payment of interest on the loan. VI BUDGETS AND DISBURSEMENTS 6.1 Annual Budget. The Board shall adopt upon the approval of not less than two thirds (2/3) of the members of the Board, an annual budget, for the ensuing fiscal year, pursuant to procedures developed by the Board. 6.2 Disbursements. The auditor shall draw warrants upon the approval and written order of the Board. The Board shall requisition the payment of funds only upon approval of such claims or disbursements and such requisition for payment in accordance -19- with rules, regulations, policies, procedures and bylaws adopted by the Board. 6.3 Accounts. All funds will be placed in object accounts and the receipt, transfer, or disbursement of such funds during the term of this Agreement shall be accounted for in accordance with general accepted accounting principles applicable to governmental entities. There shall be strict accountability of all funds. All revenues and expenditures shall be report- ed to the Board. 6.4 Expenditures Within Approved Annual Budget. All expenditures within the designations and limi- tations of the approved annual budget shall be made upon the approval of a majority of the members of the Board. Notwith- standing the above, no expenditures shall be made for the purpose of the acquisition of rights -of -way or similar prop- erty interests except upon the approval of not less than two thirds (2/3) of the members of the Board. No expenditures in excess of those budgeted shall be made without the approval of not less than two thirds (2/3) of the members of the Board to a revised or amended budget which may, from time to time, be.submitted to the Board. 6.5 Audit. The records and accounts of the Agency shall be audited annually by an independent certified public account- ant and copies of such audit report shall be filed with the -20- • • County Auditor, State Controller and each party to the Agency ho.later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of said audit by the Board. 6.6 Reimbursement of Funds. Grant funds received by the Agency from any fed- eral, state, or local agency to pay for budgeted expenditures for which the Agency has received all or a portion of said funds from the parties hereto shall be paid to said parties in proportion to the contributions made by each party. VII SECURITIES 7.1 Securities. Upon the approval of the Board, one or more parties of the Agency may jointly participate in any statutory power for the issuance of securities to finance the fees authorized by Government Code Section 66464.3, including the power to establish one or more community facilities districts under the Mello Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, Government Code Section 53311, et seq., or any other applicable legislation. Other than the fees specified herein, no funds of a party to this Agreement shall be utilized as security or as a source for the payment or, redemption of any securities, without the consent of the legislative body of that party. Upon the approval.of not less than two- thirds.(2 /3) of the members of the Board, the Agency may participate in -21- the above - mentioned statutory powers for bond financing of the fees specified herein; provided, however, that the fees collected by any individual member of the Agency may be excluded as security for or as a source for such financing if the Board, upon the approval of not less than two- thirds (2/3) of its members, so provides. VIII LIABILITIES 8.1 Liabilities. The debts, liabilities, and obligations of the Agency shall be the debts, liabilities, or obligations of the Agency alone and not of the parties to this.Agreement, unless expressly specified herein. 8.2 Hold Harmless and Indemnity. Each party hereto agrees to indemnify and hold the .other parties harmless from all liability for damage, actual or alleged, to persons or property arising out of or result- ing from negligent acts or omissions of the indemnifying party or its employees. Where the Board itself or its agents or employees are held liable for injuries to persons or prop- erty, each party's liability for contribution or indemnity for such injuries shall be based proportionately upon the contributions (less voluntary contributions) of each member. .In the event of liability imposed upon any of the parties to this Agreement, or upon the Board created by this Agreement, for injury which is caused by the negligent or wrongful act -22- 0 or omission of any of the parties in the performance of this Agreement, the contribution of the party or parties not directly responsible for the negligent or wrongful act or omission shall be limited to One Hundred Dollars ($100.00). The party or parties directly responsible for the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions shall indemnify, defend, and hold all other parties harmless from any liability for per- sonal injury or property damage arising out of the perform- ance of this Agreement. IX ADMISSION AND WITHDRAWAL OF PARTIES 9.1 Admission of New Parties. It is recognized that public entities, other than the original parties, may wish to participate in the Agency. Additional public entities may become parties to the Agency upon such terms and conditions, including, but not limited to; financial contributions, as provided by the Board and the unanimous consent of each existing party to the Agency, evidenced by the execution of a written addendum to this Agreement, and signed by all of the parties including the additional party. 9.2 Withdrawal. It is fully .anticipated that each party hereto shall participate in the Agency until the purposes set forth in Section 2.2 above are accomplished. The withdrawal of any party, either voluntary or involuntary pursuant to Sections -23- 4.2 and 4.3 above, unless otherwise provided by the Board, . shall be conditioned as follows: (i) in the case of a voluntary withdrawal, written notice shall be given one hundred and twenty (120) days prior to the end of a fiscal year; (ii) the fee program established by the party pursuant to this Agreement, shall remain in effect for a period of at least four (4) years after its adoption and for any additional period of time in which the Agency has theretofore made a financial commitment secured by the receipt of such fees; (iii) said withdrawal shall not relieve the party of its proportionate share of any debts or other liabilities incurred by the Agency prior to the effective date of the party's withdrawal,, nor any liabilities imposed upon or incurred by the party pursuant to this Agreement prior to the effective date of the party's withdrawal; and (iv) said with- drawal shall result in the forfeiture of that party's rights and claims relating to distribution of property and funds upon termination of the Agency, as set forth in Section 10.2 below. Notwithstanding the. above, in the event that the withdrawal of a party from the Agency is ordered by a final order of a court of competent jurisdiction, or said withdrawal is caused solely by the judicial invalidation of a fee. program instituted by that party pursuant to Section 4.1 above, the contribution of that party (as defined in Section 4.3 above) shall be refunded to said party upon its -24- withdrawal and said party shall have no further liability for its proportionate share of any debts or other liabilities incurred by the Agency prior to or subsequent to said party's withdrawal from the Agency. TERMINATION AND DISPOSITION OF ASSETS 10.1 Termination. The Agency shall continue to exercise the joint powers.herein until the termination of this Agreement and any extension thereof or until the parties shall have mutually rescinded this Agreement; providing, however, that the Agency and this Agreement shall continue to exist for the .purposes of: disposing of all claims, distribution of assets and all other functions necessary to conclude the affairs of the Agency. Termination shall be accomplished by written con- sent of all of the parties, or shall occur upon the with- drawal from the Agency of a sufficient number of the agencies enumerated herein so as to leave less than five of the enumerated agencies remaining in the Agency, or shall occur upon the effective date of the inclusion of the transporta- tion facilities constructed pursuant to this Agreement in the California State Highway System as defined and governed by Division l of the Streets and Highways Code. -25- 10.2 Distribution of Property and Funds. In the event of the termination of this Agreement, any property interest remaining in the Agency following the discharge of all obligations shall be disposed of as the Board shall determine with the objective of returning to each party or former party a proportionate return on the contri- butions made to such properties by such parties, less pre- vious returns, if any, provided that said property interests shall be utilized to construct major arterial transportation facilities which accomplish the purposes of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, to the extent legally pos- sible. In the event of the termination of this Agreement, any funds remaining following the discharge of all obliga- tions shall be disposed of by returning to each party a pro- portionate share of such funds equal to the percentage of the contribution made by each party, less each party's propor- tionate share of expenditures, if any, provided that said funds shall. be expended to construct major arterial trans- portation facilities which accomplish the purposes of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, to the extent legally possible. -26- 0 I MISCELLANEOUS 11i1.Amendments. This Agreement may be amended with the approval of not less than three - fourths (3/4) of all members. 11.2 Notice. Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, registered or certified, postage prepaid, addressed to the addresses of the parties as shown on Exhibit "B ", shall be deemed to. have been received by the party to whom the same is addressed at the expiration of seventy -two (72) hours after deposit of the same in the United States Post Office for transmission. by registered or certified mail as aforesaid. 11.3 Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective and the Agency shall exist at such time as this Agreement has been executed by any five or more of the public agencies enumerated herein. 11.4 Arbitration. Any controversy or claim between any two or more parties to this Agreement, or between any such party or parties and the Agency, in respect to the Agency's opera- tions, or to any claims, disputes, demands, differences, controversies, or misunderstandings arising under, out of, or in relation to this contract, or any breach thereof, shall be -27- submitted to and determined by arbitration. To the extent not inconsistent herewith, the rules of the American Arbitra- tion Association shall apply. The party desiring to initiate arbitration shall give notice of its intention to arbitrate to every other party to this Agreement and the Agency. Such notice shall designate as "respondents" such other parties as the initiating party intends to have bound by any award made therein. Any party not so designated but which desires to join in the arbitration may, within ten (10) days of service upon it of such notice, file a response indicating its inten- tion to join in and to be bound by the results of the arbi- tration, and. further designating any other parties it wishes to name as a respondent. Within twenty (20). days of the service of the initial demand for arbitration, the American Arbitration Association, hereinafter referred to as "AAA ", shall submit simultaneously to the initiating party and to all parties named as respondents or filing a response there- in, an identical list of names of persons chosen from the AAA National Panel of Arbitrators which persons shall be, to the extent possible, persons first in the field of transportation as well as public law. Each party to the dispute shall have seven (7) days from the mailing date in which to cross off any names to which he or she objects, number the remaining names indicating the order of his or her preference, and return the list to the AAA. If a party does not return the list within the time specified, all persons named therein -28- shall be deemed acceptable. From among the persons who have been approved on both lists, in accordance with. the designated order of mutual preference, the AAA shall invite the acceptance of an. arbitrator to serve. If the parties fail to agree upon one of the persons named, the acceptable arbitrator is unable to act, or if for any other reason the appointment cannot be made from the submitted list, the AAA shall have the power to make the appointment of the arbi- trator from other members of the panel without the submission of any additional list. The arbitrator shall proceed to arbitrate the mat- ter in accordance with the provisions of Title 9 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11.5 Partial Invalidity. If any one or more of the terms, provisions, sec- tions, promises, covenants or conditions of this Agreement shall to any extent be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent; jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining terms, provi- sions, sections, promises, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 11.6 Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of the parties hereto. -29- 11.7 Assignment. The parties hereto shall not assign any rights or obligations under this Agreement without written. consent of all other parties. 11.8 Execution. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange and the city councils of the cities enumerated herein have each authorized execution of this Agreement, as evidenced by the authorized signatures below, respectively. ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By— Dated ATTEST: City Clerk City of Costa Mesa By Dated ATTEST: City Clerk City of Irvine By Dated -30- COUNTY OF ORANGE By Chairman Board of Supervisors CITY OF COSTA MESA By Mayor CITY OF IRVINE By Mayor 0 ATTEST: City Clerk City of Laguna Beach By Dated ATTEST: City Clerk City of Newport Beach By Dated ATTEST: City Clerk City of San Clemente By Dated ATTEST: City Clerk City of San Juan Capistrano By Dated ATTEST: City Clerk City of Santa Ana By Dated -31- 0 CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH By Mayor CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By Mayor CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE By Mayor CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO By Mayor CITY OF SANTA ANA By Mayor 0 EXHIBIT "A" (Memoranda of Understanding of Signatory Agencies) 32 °. EXHIBIT "B" (List of Member Names and Addresses) 33 EXHIBIT "C" (Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and the Foothill /Eastern Transportation Cor- ridor) !�y ro 41 Y O c v N Y E o cC Cl 0 wz W O ro Y O v N t 11^ N C E O OElo ++ 1 7 L N 'O 10^ L L O z J U W 7 a a Y a1 L Y In U •r 4- O O N O L L ►- W zQm Ix a =O WO n N 7 c> O •� E 1 W Ln EO o 1 0) E Y a1 E H Tv 3 v cn ^ u Ln •r i L ro Y a) 2 i al v al W Q c U 0 L o ro 4- .- O) ZO-0 > 4- U_ C 3N Z a) L Y 4- 10 O) ca L V ro O 4- 1--• al T m L J a) r- a1 7 E O E L 4- L Y 10 a) a t r C Q O r 'D 'o 7^ u Cl. i t aa) Ln F- Y ro u 3 C 0 3 'O T Y Y to O O Lj- Y O ++ .--• 4- •- a) O L• r 4- Y r- 4- Z Z O W O C O r r ✓I C 7 U O U 3 2 Q S ro U Y 4 -a ro L C r- ro m W o W W ~i V) U a) ro 0 E c a) V) 3 al •r t 4- 0 L, z W o 0 c T 'r a1 a) O O I--• O W 7 4- Y 4- a) Y 7t E4- L z _ I ! ��G� I DC= CL 00) In ro O) V C U Y a 7 >, ro O O O C W Q L7 U 01 L "O O c Y C 7 ^ L 4- Y t al a Y TUU O 100 r0 Y to U 3 "� 'O a) •r O O .+ • • Y to Y 4- n •r O U 4 Y 4- r OY N LT C ro a) •r 0 W N C7 N U a 7'a •O 3 ry. 0)•r ro v ro Q) Y m Q) C L Y a) O M Cro Y L•r 1 \ C3 z X 4� E L a) C Y 4 - LL C x V) a) a) Y ro (M3 U 0 w z r+ ,- J W ro a1 •r -,nL 7 L N•r 4- 0 c o Y 7 O aa))(�o L Y a1 c a) •r al W m W -41 C c 3 Ln C O LS C U 041 a) E C _ O N .c ro C ++ ro Y L O O Y 3 W - U J m LL O O 2 i W ^ ro U a) O a) :- •r n ro a) O t O O C C Y U O) O Z w Co W Z .� U Y O Y i N 7 C 4- to r- © r LL Ce ro •r Y a) ro a L ro r L O I 4-7 LN O Y a) L U O Z Q _O Q -1 N 00 N "O Y L Y M /y U T N Y C U •r C) �--) Q U rti 'O .--L C a) O Y a) L 4- a C C 0) O LL L/•.L/ C O +� 4- 0 C O L O 4- O L 0 •r Y 7 T O U L V) 1--• I- O Z 1--• 1--- C' V) Z f-- L L C •r O Ln a) O 7 C E aY D.:3 c O W Y Ln 0> O U c c t c m O W V) -0 a4- Q a) ro O al a) O a) 00 r�cua)a)TU w v1 moz E 3oa)UL L- Y r•vEa) LL) (1 a u Q U al O r 0 Y ro 0 U a1 0.- C LL LL W C) Z •--• O + v) U a) aJ C > Z A ro > Ln o C Q Z (1) c c 0 clu 0 OO O C Y Y L •r a m ww 2' LY o ro rnr Z •' a) C ro ro 02 ro 'O L al 7 Q m a t0 Qcc u •r c v o a +' •ro C:, C i •r G L > Ln 3 •a) al Ln u aro) a' Y .L W a- ro L U N Y a) t Y Q K Q K J O O C O ro C a) ') al a) •r O •r al •r a) U L CEL U U• W LL LL > L- L a) C C Q ••- 3 0 t ro 0 0 O O _Q - Y O) C 4- L-- LL O 3IY C 4... r at- a) a LY K U N N ro r •r C •r W •r N U al L d ro a) ro C O m 0 d d oc 1 I- r Y a) 'O O Y Z E W Z L T O L C 10 Y 10 •r a• Y ro W W V) w •-+ •-+ w E G'-' � Y O a..0 • c L0 O Y L ro m l.. L- 7 0 V- O) 3 Y N L L W W f i d' OC 2 V O a 0 a o c 0 a1 U L Y O aY r Y (U C U 0 a LL LL O O W W S U C_ d W Y ro 4- V a) � L 0-- Y '0 a N ro a) O) O U L 7 ro O 3 a) m m Et CL QJ 4O• JY O L i ro Ln m C ro C LL 'n OI U a) t w w LA (' (7 (.J U a a) C L Y O a) >1•r ^ LL4- O c m z Y V) V) z z z z 3:10 O o Li) a.G Y 'G O r o o c Y04 -4- E Y LT U O 4- 4- o C- C) C- 1- 1--- m m a)•r•r(u m z Ln Y H E r •--• a .r L 0)•r .O7 O - al 7 al L •r O O O O N V) J J W U 7 r- r•C O Y 1] O m• -+ O. U T C W d M C. �+ •-• •--� •--• X X�� W C) O O O W O U 0. t al •r a) -0 1] T a) N ; 7 0 LLJ LLJ M co 2 M Y U V - ca) L w W 0 0 0 0 M O ro ro 7 V '0 T O ar ro Z Y U Y 2 2 V) Y Y r C o ro N L Ln U L-- N i •r 04- C al 7 L 0) 0 0 0 o 'O E O Y a) U O O m L Wa) C •r Cl a) 3 a) ••- •nL t•r uY Y U2]•r ro 0 U t Y Y ro 10 Y L T N •--• E L L C L V1 U N E a L Y a)L C L- Id'0 ro C 0.- L O O Q Q 0 D U Y 4- U O L a) O L O Z U L Y F- N al a) L L l L l Y) U 41 ro 41 Y O c v c o o , Cl wz / W O v N t 11^ N O ; z J U W _ W Z = Z 1 \I / ►- W zQm Ix a =O WO z 1 W cn Z m Lai LLJ w °o cn I m W o W W / L, z W o 0 OOo N NN 1ro ^tee s- _ I ! ��G� I I a W W W O w oc �he V G wx w D. LL ll.. a Y TUU E3 LT+-� O Y (, A . t i U ( M Q) Y m Q) C L Y a) O M Cro Y L•r 1 \ O ro Y Y �r O aa))(�o 0) C In Y Y 10 O N � _ 10t L Y Y N ri __- Y U Ln ) en C U.v 4 O a) r, - ^ S- - .-m ovoO10 r L O I 4-7 ro ro 0o c c CL):;: = (v Ln aJ t _ b 3 C N Ol •r O) L Lo0 0 0 1 m S- •� o(D m tr (0 0 1n In N (n v •r c c t c m N O a) O a) 00 nM NlAN fA mU OL4-Y O O Y L 4- IU !n 10O U to U a) ua Q m a t0 Qcc c v o a +' •ro m N d w d u aro) a' c c c c c c M.0 Om a) NNNNNN Y Y Y Y L 0 c ro L ++ 0 .z i O � r C N U al L d ro V C a)a as az u L ro !n ^ a) y m ro • Y 'O a) t O C L ro •N C U U Y a) ro N y C 7 •r ro E > y o+� m YEwn o .0 c Ln rn u v NLnL icco0 N Et CL QJ 4O• JY ) Li N Y 3 t Y L 10 x v 41 - o C a Cr-ar O Z L O L c Z L• 4) 3 3 0 Cl 4- > a) 4- O C 7 m' O ro Y z O cn Q ro (U t •r >1 .z L 0)•r .O7 O - Saa o C ro •.) O M O I- Y U r (AM LL paSod Ord Joe) ul ales tIL6L ' U H-Iavw liOmoo AID AS ®3ldOGV � r . - _-. ...e..�,\,17- __ a i •�. � � �E�t • � as ""' :� � � kN \ ;. i. wl 00000 i �(Ir�`I ; z , mass, vv zl�cr�td ��� 3+-I I -v of f yA-)Logy c�Cv I-&" H `D ►-7g na1 )N 1 lsod -00-3 Cf o 1 -LV _) O-1 Lrf �.- c ft 71 111ooP +* W ee ju: 10 �1� � ,:gym \ `• P a Aa C"i� �1 'Palf!tOw Pel f(mu,ud (Pap!^b auoi X!s) pD% Johyw --- 1 (pap!^!a ami x") Poaa AxKu.ud ......... •w!+ y ambeW Oma sauioa . • . SkVhV+JIH 's 51332115 ` JO NV Id 1131SVW 1N3W313 N011bli sr) - HN38 lWdM3N