1992-0107_ORANGE, COUNTY OF_Cooperative Agreement_� • Cr_ �J
ORIGINAL
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
1 ROAD FEE PROGRAMS
2
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 1+h day of
3 19 41j2k.
4 BY AND BETWEEN
5 CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as
6 CITY,
7 and
8 COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision
of the State of California, hereinafter
9 referred to as COUNTY.
10 W I T N E S S E T H
11 WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66484.3 permits the adoption of
Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee programs provided the local agency has
12 adopted a local ordinance in compliance with State Law; and
13 WHEREAS, Section 7-9-316 of the Codified Ordinances of Orange County
provides for the establishment of major thoroughfare and bridge fee programs in
14 Orange County; and
15 WHEREAS, COUNTY had established and had agreements permitting the
establishment, prior to annexation, the following major thoroughfare and bridge
16 fee programs which include land within the city limits of CITY: MOULTON
PARKWAY/LAGUNA NIGUEL; and
17
WHEREAS, CITY has adopted the fee program(s) as required by the conditions
18 of annexation; and
19 WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY desire to set forth the responsibilities of each
respective party relative to the major thoroughfare and bridge fee programs
20 within the jurisdiction of both parties.
21 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
22 1. COUNTY shall have the responsibility for:
23 a) Overall administration of the fee programs.
b) Maintaining the Seven Year Plan of Capital Improvements.
24 c) Consulting CITY with respect to inclusion of projects within the
Seven Year Plan of Capital Projects.
25 d) Serving as central collection/distribution agency for fees.
26
27
28 - 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21i
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
e) Determining and implementing automatic fee adjustments based on the
California Construction Cost Index, within unincorporated areas
covered by the fee program.
f) Preparing the yearly reports required by Section 66000 of the
Government Code with respect to the fee programs, and delivering
copy of same to CITY.
g) Issuance of fee credit agreements for developer completed
improvements authorized by the fee program - based upon CITY
recommendation.
h) Providing CITY with copy of any fee credit agreement for work
completed within CITY jurisdiction and issued in compliance with lg
above.
I) Providing CITY with list of all fee credit agreements that have been
issued in all areas for work completed for the fee programs.
j) Providing technical support to CITY with respect to all aspects of
fee programs.
k) Based upon CITY request, coordinate the transition of fee program
Improvement responsibilities within CITY jurisdiction to CITY.
1) Receiving and disbursing fees in accordance with the fee program.
m) Acting as lead agency for fee program construction projects within
unincorporated areas.
n) Review and approval, within 45 days of submittal to COUNTY, of
plans, specifications and engineering for CITY projects.
o) Collection of fees outside of CITY boundaries.
2. CITY shall have the responsibility for:
a) Collection of fees for development within CITY boundaries according
to the provisions of the fee programs and forwarding same to COUNTY.
b) Determining and implementing automatic fee adjustments within the
CITY areas covered by the fee program, according to the provisions
of the fee programs, based on COUNTY's lead.
c) Providing input to COUNTY regarding inclusion of fee program
improvements with the Seven Year Plan of Capital Improvements.
d) Acting as lead agency for fee program construction projects within
CITY jurisdiction and submittal construction projects for COUNTY
approval, within 45 days of submittal to COUNTY, prior to
advertisement of contract.
e) Reviewing developer completed improvements, within CITY
jurisdiction, for compliance with fee program requirements, and
forwarding CITY recommendations to COUNTY on any proposed fee credit
agreement.
3. Priority of Improvements:
a) The CITIES within the fee program area and COUNTY shall jointly
prioritize projects for a 7 year period. Projects shall be selected
by majority vote of all jurisdictions' (City Engineer and EMA
Director of Transportation or designee) within fee program area,
unless otherwise provided by the fee program.
b) Project funding shall be allocated based upon the priority
established in 3a, above. Construction of nonprioritized projects
or acceleration of projects shall be accomplished only if funds are
available. Priorities can be reviewed on an annual basis.
- 2 -
M
4
[3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1s
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
Indemnification:
•
a) That neither COUNTY nor any officer or employee thereof shall be
responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of
anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
CITY under this Agreement. It is also understood and agreed
that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, CITY shall fully
indemnify and hold COUNTY harmless from any liability imposed for
injury, as defined by Government Code Section 810.8, including
attorneys fees and costs, occurring by reason of anything done or
omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work,
authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement.
b) That neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof shall be
responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of
anything done or omitted to be done by COUNTY under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
COUNTY under this Agreement. It is also understood and agreed
that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, COUNTY shall
fully indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any liability imposed
for injury, as defined by Government Code Section 810.8,
including attorneys fees and costs, occurring by reason of
anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in
connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to
COUNTY under this Agreement.
MM
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
81
91
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
0
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY has caused this Agreement to be executed by its
Mayor and attested by its Clerk, and COUNTY has caused this Agreement to be
executed by the Chairman of its Board of Supervisors and attested by its Clerk,
on the dates written opposite their signatures, all thereunto duly authorized
by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors respectively.
Dated: December 3
ATTEST:
i
i `.
CITY of SAN JUAWCAPISTRANO
A munic ' orpgration
1991
G Bl ayor
Dated: I— 'j-q�L-, S
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY
OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED
TO THE CHAIRMAN
�OF/THE BOARD
Linda D. Ruth
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of Orange County, California
APPROVED F
By
City Attorney
OF ORANGE; -A --Political__ _
isionthe State of
o
ornia r-
By:
oald of Supervisors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TERRY C. ANS, COUNTY COUNSEL
ORANGE CO Y, CALIFORNIA
By:
Date
- 4 -
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS •
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MINUTES
January 7, 1992
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO FOR ROAD FEE
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: Environmental Management Agency requests
approval of an agreement for implementation of the Moulton Parkway/
Laguna Niguel Road Fee Program.
MOTION: On motion by Supervisor Wieder, seconded by Supervisor Vasquez,
the Board authorized execution of Cooperative Agreement with the City of
San Juan Capistrano. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
0
� I�[OA,O.Al10
I SI Ait ISHfD 1961
1776
December 9, 1991
Mr. Roger Hohnbaum, MaI sp,(.t
EMA Road Programs
P. O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, California 92702
Re: Moulton Parkway/Laguna Niguel Area Road Fee Program
Dear Mr. Hohnbaum:
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
LAWRENCE F BUCHHEIM
KENNETH E FRIESS
GARY HAUSOORFER
GIL JONES
JEFF VASQUEZ
CITY MANAGER
STEPHEN B JULIAN
The City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano at its regular meeting held
December 3, 1991, approved the the Cooperative Agreement with the County
setting forth the responsibilities for continued implementation of traffic
improvements in Areas of Benefit annexed by the City of San Juan Capistrano.
Three copies of the Agreement are enclosed. Upon approval of the Board of
Supervisors, please return one fully -executed copy to this office.
Thank you for your cooperation. If we can be of further assistance, please call.
Very truly yours,
Cheryl Johnson
City Clerk
Enclosures
cc: Director of Engineering and Building Services
32400 PASEO ADELANTO, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA 92675 • (714) 493-1171
2.
Written Communication:
Report dated December 3, 1991, from the Director of Planning
Services, recommending that a Council member be appointed to
represent the City at inter -jurisdictional forums for Growth
Management Areas 9, 10, and 11, in compliance with a provi-
sion of Measure "M" to receive funding.
AApnointment of Council Member to Inter -Jurisdictional Forums:
It was moved by Councilman Hausdorfer, seconded by Councilman
Friess, and unanimously carried that Mayor Jones be appointed
as the City's representative at the inter -jurisdictional
forums for Growth Management Areas 9, 10, and 11.
. • cei Zi M99
Written Communication:
Report dated December 3, 1991, from the Director of Engineer-
ing and Building, recommending that the Final Map be approved
to subdivide a 3.37 -acre site into three residential parcels,
but that the Park and Recreation fees not be deferred to
future building permit applicants since no public benefit was
identified.
Approval of Tentative Parcel May 89-312:
It was moved by Councilman Hausdorfer, seconded by Councilman
Friess, that the Final Map be approved based on the finding
that the map is in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act
and conditions set forth by Resolution No. 89-11-21-3.
Payment of Park and Recreation fees shall be required prior
to release of the Final Map to the County Recorder. The City
Engineer and City Clerk were authorized to execute the Final
Map after receipt of Park and Recreation fee, and the City
Clerk was directed to record the map with the County Recor-
der.
Written Communication:
Report dated December 3, 1991, from the Director o Engineer-
ing and Building, recommending that the City enter into a
Cooperative Agreement regarding Road Fee Programs with the
County in order to continue implementation of traffic
-12-
12/3/91
AGENDA ITEM December 3, 1991
TO: Stephen B. Julian, City Manager
FROM: William M. Huber, Director of Engineering & Building
SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement (Road Fee Program - Moulton Parkway/Laguna
Niguel Area) With County of Orange
SITUATION
In January, 1987, the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution which
formed the attached Moulton Parkway/Laguna Niguel Fee Program. This was the result
of three years of studies and public hearings in accordance with Orange County
Ordinance which provides for the establishment of major thoroughfare and bridge
construction fees to be paid by subdividers and building permit applicants in the County
of Orange. The recommended improvements of the Moulton Parkway and Laguna Niguel
transportation studies include street widening, bike trails and traffic signal
improvements. Most of these improvements have been completed and no improvements
are within the City.
At the time the Fee Program was adopted, the area of benefit shown in the attached Fee
Program involved County unincorporated areas only. Since adoption, portions of the
areas of benefit have been annexed by cities and/or new cities have been formed. In the
City of San Juan Capistrano, as shown on the attached map, the existing Dana Mesa
residential area and the Colinas de Capistrano hillside and ridgeline open space area are
in the area of benefit and have since been annexed by the City.
It is understood that fees are to be imposed on new development projects, not imposed
upon existing residential, commercial or industrial used on building permits for
residential remodeling or additions, or for reconstruction of existing buildings which do
not increase the number of residential dwelling units or commercial floor area.
Though the cities adopted the Fee Program as a condition of annexation, no formal
agreement establishing responsibilities has ever been developed In order to continue
implementation of the traffic improvements, it is necessary to involve the appropriate
cities, which recently acquired jurisdictional authority in the decision making and
implementation process. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached
Cooperative Agreement (Road Fee Program) with the County of Orange.
NOTIFICATION
Roger Hohnbaum, Manager, EMA Road Programs, P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702.
FOR CRY COUNCIL AGENT{ .../"
AGENDA ITEM •
December 3, 1991
Page 2
COMMISSION/BOARD REVIEW, RECOMMENDATIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
None
ALTERNATE ACTIONS
1. Approve the agreement with the County.
2. Do not approve the agreement with the County.
3. Request further information from Staff.
RECOMMENDATION
0
By motion, approve Cooperative Agreement (Road Fee Program - Moulton
Parkway/Laguna Niguel Area) with the County of Orange.
Respectfully submitted,
William M. Huber, P.E.
WMH/TGS:ssg
Attachments:
1. Dana Mesa/Colinas de Capistrano Area Benefit Map
2. Three copies of Cooperative Agreement
3. Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for Moulton Parkway/Laguna
Niguel Area
Q
Colinas de Capistrano
Open Space
zonine:OS �•
Open Space
Dana Mesa Area
zonkmRS
SlnSle FamNy
0 0
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM
f;10P
MOULTON PARKWAY/LAGUNA NIGUEL AREA
Prepared by
Environmental Management Agency
Transportation Program Office
January, 1987
_ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
2 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 7, 1987 --
3
4
5 On motion of Supervisor Riley , duly seconded and carried, the
following Resolution was adopted:
6 WHEREAS, Section 7-9-316 of the Codified Ordinances of Orange County provides
7 for the establishment of major thoroughfare and bridge construction fees to be paid
by subdividers and building permit applicants in the County of Orange; and
8 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Supervisors have conducted two
9 comprehensive transportation studies entitled "Moulton Parkway Feasibility Study"
and "Laguna Niguel Comprehensive Traffic Study;" and
10
_ WHEREAS,_the Orange County Board of Supervisors by Resolution No. 83-280 dated.
11 February 23, 1983 and Minute Order dated March 30, 1984 directed the Environmental
Management Agency to develop a fee program for the implementation of the recommended
12 improvements of the Moulton Parkway and Laguna Niguel transportation studies; and
13 WHEREAS. the Director, Environmental Management Agency, did prepare and submit
to the Planning Commission a proposed Moulton Parkway/Laguna Niguel Fee Program; and
14
18
19
20
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed, considered, and recommended approval
of the proposed Moulton Parkway/Laguna Niguel Fee Program; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was given to all property owners as
provided in Section 7-9-316; and
WHEREAS, the property owners within the area of benefit did not file a majority
written protest to the establishment of the Moulton Parkway/Laguna Niguel Fee
Program; and
WHEREAS, an initial study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act;
21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Negative Declaration No. IP 86-103 was
issued as a result of the initial study prepared to assess the environmental impacts
22 which might be associated with the adoption of the Moulton Parkway/Laguna Niguel Fee
Program and that it is determined that the project will not have a significant
23 effect on the environment and no environmental impact report is required.
24
25
n
N 26
-i27
k
�-28
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the boundary of the area of benefit for the Moulton
Parkway/Laguna Niguel Fee Program shall be the aggregate of the areas described for
the Moulton Parkway Fee Zone and the Laguna Niguel Fee Zone as described in the
January 1987 document entitled "Major Thoroughfare and.Bridge Fee Program for
Moulton Parkway and Laguna Niguel Area" attached hereto and identified as Attachment
I and made a part hereof and hereinafter referred to as "Program.•
Resolution No. 87-25
Pub Erg/Moulton pkwy RECEIVED
Laguna Nig. Fee Prog.. `
BPn:rm JAN 211987
EMA .
-1- -
' 1
2
3
4
• •
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the estimated cost of these major thoroughfares and
bridges areas follows: -
Moulton Parkway Improvements - `$13,500;000
Laguna Niguel Area Improvements $ 2,400,000 -
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that fees for developments within the area of benefit`
shall be based on fee zones established in the program.
5N BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the fees for these major thoroughfares and bridges
IIare adopted as follows and shall become effective immediately upon adoption of this
6 resolution:
7
Single Family
Multi -Family
Dwelling Unit
Dwelling Unit
Non -Residential
S
Moulton Parkway Fee Zone
$235/Unit
$137/Unit
$0.47/sq, ft.
9
Laguna Niguel Fee Zone
1
$129/Unit
$ 75/Unit
$0.55/sq. ft.
10
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that an automatic
adjustment of the
fees, based upon the
California Construction Cost
Index prepared and published by the
Department of
11
Transportation shall be made
each year.
12 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an adjustment of the fee based upon updated project
cost estimates or other changed conditions shall be made when necessary.
13
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that collection of the fee shall be a condition of
14 Issuance of a building permit for non-residential projects and a condition of final
inspection or issuance of the Certificate of Use and Occupancy whichever occurs
15 later, for residential projects as described in Program.
16 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the. Director, Environmental Management Agency, is
hereby directed to administer the Moulton Parkway/Laguna Niguel Area Fee Program
17 according to the Program.
18 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, pursuant to Government Code Section 66484.3, the.
Clerk of the Board is directed to record a certified copy of this Resolution and the
19 exhibit hereto.
:10
AYES: SUPERVISORS THOMAS F. RI=, DCN R. ROTH, ROGER R. STANTCN, HARRI TP M.
WIEDER, BRUCE NFSBME
NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE
22 ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS NONE
23 ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE
24
25
26
N
O 27
LL
8
9
10
21
22
23
24
25
C
`26
27
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) - --
a r' r
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) d
I, LINDA D. ROBERTS, Clerk of the Board"of Supervisors of OrangeF,County,,..
California, hereby certify that the above 'and foregoing Resolution wasidulyYand
regularly adopted by the said Boa�d at a regular meeting thereof held on the, }
7th day of January , 1987, and passed by the foregoing vote of
said Board.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 7th day of
January, 1987.
l� S
t
fi vn
'�#M'AtPWT2.0-1 '
;S3 A
LINDA D. RONsuperviaors
S
(� Clerk of the Board of ofOrange County, Cfornia
r
. s
MOU�T. LPARKWAY/LAGUNA NIGUEL
r �ti NA
{: ` :��'` i4� AREA OF BENEFIT
1 1
cm•- ov, T i ,.! F Aa . ,,. {i YAJK Sours �`� - n % n]
'acres ]Itw A • r{ or
�� /' •tel ' 1 Lis ] , � `+ ��
t Qi
- - y % of ���:• -; .. •>X.• j
LA WA REAM
S] F
r
ST
i
Moulton Parkway Fee Zone -
ss
T--- • •, SA C1.CN N
Laguna Niguel Fee Zone
TACHM_ ENT 1
__ -— — i11Af 5
SECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
Executive Summary
Background
Moulton Parkway Improvements
Laguna Niguel improvements
Area of Benefit (AOB)
Distribution of Fees
Description of Area of Benefit (AOB)
Criteria for Collection of Fees
Development Exactions and Credits
Fee Adjustments
Exemptions
-i-
PAGE
1
4
5
9
11
12
15
17
17
18
19
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT NO. TITLE
I. Moulton Parkway/Laguna Niguel
Area Of Benefit
II. Area of Influence, Moulton Parkway
(Percent User Trip Ends)
III. Area of Influence, Laguna Niguel
(Percent User Trip Ends)
IV. Summary of Fee Calculations
Moulton Parkway
V. Summary of Fee Calculations
Laguna Niguel
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE
1. Additional Lane Requirements
Arterial Intersections
II. Adjusted Trip Ends
III. Cross Benefit Analysis by Fee Zones
IV. Allocation of Total Improvement Cost by Fee Zones
PWT35-3 -Si-
■
PAGE
20
21
22
23
25
PAGE
6
13
14
14
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM
FOR
MOULTON PARKWAY/LAGUNA NIGUEL AREA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Moulton Parkway/Laguna Niguel fee program is the result of two
comprehensive traffic studies which identified recommended road improvements to
arterial highways in south Orange County to accommodate projected traffic
volumes. The Moulton Parkway Feasibility Study completed in February of 1983
recommended improvements for Moulton Parkway between Lake Forest Drive and Crown
Valley Parkway. The second study, Laguna Niguel Comprehensive Traffic Study,
recommended improvements to several intersections along Crown Valley Parkway and
Street of the Golden Lantern among others. The improvements recommended for
funding under the proposed fee program would be for roadway facilities exceeding
the normal arterial highway requirements.
MOULTON PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND COST ESTIMATE
The improvements proposed on Moulton Parkway are similar to those identified in
the Moulton Parkway Feasibility Study completed in 1983 by Basmaciyan-Darnell,
Inc. The improvements include the widening of Moulton Parkway to six lanes,
where four currently exist, and the widening at all arterial intersections
between Lake Forest Drive and Oso Parkway. Most of the crossing arterials will
also be widened. Extra lanes are proposed through the widened portions of
intersections to allow for dual left -turn lanes and, in some areas, increasing
the number of through lanes from the standard six to eight.
The estimated cost to implement the improvements along Moulton Parkway is $13.5
million. The cost is broken down as follows:
Right-of-way and slope or construction easement $ 6.25 M
Construction and signal modification 7.24 M
Total Program $13.50 M
LAGUNA NIGUEL IMPROVEMENTS AND COST ESTIMATE
The improvements proposed for inclusion in the Laguna Niguel area are based on
the recommendations from the Laguna Niguel Comprehensive Traffic Study completed
in 1983 by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc., and Kunzman Associates. The proposed fee
program includes most of the improvements proposed by the Laguna Niguel
Comprehensive Traffic Study. The improvements and their estimate of cost are
listed below:
CDC
Intersection Estimate
1.
Crown Valley Pkwy./Cabot Road
$ 20,000
2.
Crown Valley Pkwy./Greenfield Street
82,000
3.
Crown Valley Pkwy./Niguel Road
88,000
4.
Crown Valley Pkwy./Alicia Parkway
85,000
5.
Crown Valley Pkwy./La Paz Road
44,000
6.
Crown Valley Pkwy./Golden Lantern
1,239,000
7.
Paseo de Colinas/Golden Lantern
46,000
8.
Paseo de Colinas/Cabot Road
37,000
Say
Right-of-way
Total
AREA OF BENEFIT
$1,641,000
$1,800,000
600,000
$2,400,000
Based on a detailed transportation analysis accomplished by the agency, the
improvements identified in the Moulton Parkway and Laguna Niguel studies were
determined to mostly benefit users within a specific geographic area identified
as the Area of Benefit. This Area of Benefit has been identified and is shown
on Exhibit I attached.
with limited revenue sources available to pay for upgrading arterial highways,
assessment of fees to new developments generating the additional traffic was
determined to be fair and equitable. The EMA currently requires developers in
the Moulton and Laguna Niguel areas to enter into an agreement with the agency
to participate in a fee program when one is adopted and to provide a letter of
credit or bond in the amount of the estimated fee. The fees would be levied on
new development only. Residential structures will be required to pay the
adopted fees at final inspection or issuance of the Certificate of Use and
Occupancy whichever occurs later. Commercial/industrial and other structures
will be required to pay the adopted fees prior to issuance of building permits.
Existing development such as existing homes will not be required to pay any
fees. The Area of Benefit is subdivided in a Moulton Parkway fee zone and a
Laguna Niguel fee zone. The proposed fees for the two zones are listed below:
Land Use
Single -Family
Dwelling Units
Multi -Family
Dwelling Units
Non-residential
Moulton Parkway Zone Laguna Niguel Zone
$235/unit $129/unit
$137/unit
$0.47/sq. ft.
$75/unit
$0.55/sq. ft.
Developers who are required to construct portions of the improvements identified
in the program will receive credit for that work toward the payment of their
fees. The amount of credit will not be adjusted with subsequent revisions to
-2-
the fee program once it is memorialized by agreement.' This credit may be
transferred to another landowner within the same zone only with the change in
title to the land.
Properties which are exempt from payment of property taxes will generally be
exempt from payment of fees. Governmental owned and constructed facilities and
utilities will be exempt unless the facility is used for commercial or revenue
generating purposes. All fees collected under this program will be deposited in
specific accounts for the implementation of the fee program.
-3-
-\ MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM
l) FOR
MOULTON PARKWAY/LAGUNA NIGUEL AREA
I. BACKGROUND
The proposed Moulton Parkway/Laguna Niguel fee program is the result of two
comprehensive traffic studies which identified road improvements to arterial
highways in south Orange County to accommodate projected traffic volumes.
The Moulton Parkway Feasibility Study completed in February of 1983
recommended improvements for Moulton Parkway between Lake Forest Drive and
Crown Valley Parkway. The second study, Laguna Niguel Comprehensive Traffic
Study, recommended improvements to several intersections along Crown Valley
Parkway and Street of the Golden Lantern among others. The improvements
recommended for funding under the proposed fee program would be for roadway
facilities exceeding the normal arterial highway requirements.
The Board of Supervisors by Resolution No. 83-280 dated February 23, 1983
and Minute Order dated March 20, 1984 directed the Environmental Management
Agency to develop fee programs for Moulton Parkway and selected
intersections in the Laguna Niguel area. The Board also authorized the EMA
to require subdividers within identified areas to enter into agreements to
participate in a fee program when established by the Board.
Pursuant to Government Code Sections 50029 and 66484.3 and California
Constitution Article 11, Section 7, the Board of Supervisors adopted
Section 7-9-316 of the Orange County Codified Ordinances allowing for the
establishment of major thoroughfare and bridge construction fee programs to
be paid by subdividers and building permit applicants as a condition of
approval of a final map or as a condition of issuing a building permit.
However, as a result of Assembly Bill No. 3314 (Chapter 685) approved by the
Governor on September 9, 1986, Section 53077.5 was added to the Government
Code which prohibits the County from requiring payment of fees for
construction of public improvements or facilities until the date of final
inspections or issuance of certificate of occupancy. Section 53077.5 is
effective January 1, 1987. In accordance with County Counsel's opinion
dated October 30, 1986, the Moulton Parkway/Laguna Niguel Fee Program will
be required to abide by the provisions of this new code section with the
exception of those agreements with developers executed prior to January 1,
1987. According to County Counsel, this new code section applies only to
residential development.
Consequently, the fees on residential structures within the Moulton Parkway/
Laguna Niguel Fee Program are proposed to be collected at final inspection
of at issuance of the Certificate of Use and Occupancy, whichever is later.
Commercial/industrial and other structures will be required to pay the
adopted fees prior to issuance of a building permit. Those developers who
entered into agreements with the County to participate in a fee program when
one was adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be asked to pay their fees
in accordance with the provisions of their executed agreement.
-4-
II. MOULTON PAPIMY IMPROVEMENTS
A Moulton Parkway Feasibility Study was completed in 1982-83 which
identified improvements needed on Moulton Parkway to accommodate projected
land use development in the south County and its associated traffic. These
necessary improvements include the widening of Moulton Parkway at arterial
intersections and the widening of most of the intersecting arterials.
The widening is necessary to increase traffic volume capacities through the
intersections. Extra lanes will be added through the widened portions.
These extra lanes will allow for dual left -turn lanes; separate free right -
turn lanes; acceleration lanes; and, in some areas, increasing the number of
through lanes from the standard six to eight. See Table I for location and
summary of extra lanes to be added.
Moulton Parkway must also be widened through the Leisure World community to
allow for six travel lanes and Class II on -road bike lanes. Current
improvements were constructed to primary arterial highway standards (four
travel lanes with parking lanes). Widening south of Via Campo Verde can be
accomplished within the existing right-of-way.
The estimated cost to implement the improvements along the Moulton Parkway
Corridor discussed in the preceding paragraphs is $13.5M. This cost is
broken down as follows:
Right-of-way and slope or construction easements $ 6.25M
J Construction and signal modification 7.24M
Total Program $13.50M
A Road Fee Program has been proposed to finance these improvements. The
County Board of Supervisors previously authorized the EMA to prepare
agreements and collect fees from land developers as a condition of
development pending preparation and approval of a Fee Program.
-5-
0
F)
000
14 r4 1
rl rl 1 1
N It N rl
-Wa 14
F
z
O
QN
1
a
U2
000
ao
00 1 1
1-1000
0000
V
y
z
QzQ
1.7
O O O
00 1
O O 1 I
0000
N N OrI
a
pza'
F
000
001
00 1 1
00.40
.4. 00
O
a
F
000
N .4 1
- rt 1 1
.-1 .4 'q
a
«y'y�11
4
Y u
IC
LI
L 4j J.1
L LJ
4J L Y y
4L1 411 y y
Y 7 W
4 7 W
Y 7 W W
Y 9W W
Y 7 W W
to
3
2m w9
9too NO
ztil
zO
zto W
av
-6-
^T
ro
3 R
aa°
a H
0 P
�a
W +i
r � d
C Y W
010
Y
+� ro d
u o sz
U U' G
Q {
Y to
0 W W
R 3 O
t w
+j R R
7 C M
o ro W
W
I a 3
,C W 1
W caU)
Y Cl W
O O
G c _ a
to to O
M m o
d Y W
W Y W
Y ro C
CD a to
m e rt
i +O+ ski
-W 7
0 x
a o
M . M
to i ro
w w
n r
.i
to + O
.c 3 • w
.a
i, W ro R
Yto W +
N Y L 7
a too A w
7 4
c a to
o e s
p7 7 U M
F m m x
L
R d sa
c c u m
oro e >
.W .. d
c d o
Y O V
U C
W O w
dr1L d
W ro M y
d 4 Y 11
dto da °e
Y rl W
W
1
Ln
M
EI
N V' N r-1
N N I 1
M M .-1 N
N .-1 O
O r1 1 1
to V' N M
z
0
U
H
.
CL
(a H
cm 'O
(a
ai d 4)42
o
m
m 3
00 1 I
O O O O
000
O O
m 10
a
Y
Y
Ag
1.)
la
M
W
m
m
Y>
c
a
N
U
A
b C
Q
a
a
a.+
a
a +
a o
W C"rot
v1 O U
o�o
O
O m
-
V1
a 4)
41 m
041
O 0
W
.i .1
.� .a
.d L
41 m
-I d
41 m L
1-+ m
Y
t I
H Qa>mz>W
aZa
000
00 1 1
N N O O
D
a
s
F
d
.i 11
x
r,
H
za
a
w
rl r1 .-I 11
O O 1 1
t -I 11 .i "1
.-7 .-1 O
O O I i
.i .i .-1 .i
a
«
LL
L.G
LL
LL
LL
LL
ai at .0
y y u
it a+ amt am�
i+ y sm+ NmOO
4 m m
m to
m
0
0 0 m d
0 0 m d
0 O
0 0 m d
0 0 m d
;5
ZtlJ W'3
z WS
z W3
ZtpZ
ZtA pa
Zvi W'S
-7-
F
Jmt aJ
C U
C m
C d
v m
O 0 N
M m d
41 V 41
o a C
4 1�
M m W
t0 3 O
L d
o to m
m
41 m
w d m
O O
Cv a
to m O
C > C
-+ ro o
3
d Y m
m 4 d
4 m 1;
> a to
t>c C .i
it u 4L+
'41
o a
v s �
7 .W M
m C
m +i r
to m v
+� m
C 0 [L
.0 d U
m .A 0
m «+ O
L 3 • w
14
>r m m 41 w
Y ro 0 +I
t40 � u pt
a m ro d
7 4
C b' bt
O C L
a L v V
7 0 U Y
SQ OU Od 3
Y
C C a >
o m e >
a d o
M 0 L L
N O y
d 1-141 d
W m M d
o to41
C
Www °C
4 t -I d
00 c 3 .to
N
M
O
U
CL
(a H
cm 'O
(a
ai d 4)42
o
m
m 3
m V0
8
m a
m
m 0
w e
md d
m 10
Ac
'Z Y
Y
Y
Ag
1.)
la
M
W
m
m
Y>
c
a
N
4 .�1
A
b C
Q
a
a
a.+
a
a +
a o
W C"rot
v1 O U
o�o
O
O m
-
a 4)
41 m
041
O 0
OF
.i .1
.� .a
.d L
41 m
-I d
41 m L
1-+ m
Y
t I
H Qa>mz>W
-7-
F
Jmt aJ
C U
C m
C d
v m
O 0 N
M m d
41 V 41
o a C
4 1�
M m W
t0 3 O
L d
o to m
m
41 m
w d m
O O
Cv a
to m O
C > C
-+ ro o
3
d Y m
m 4 d
4 m 1;
> a to
t>c C .i
it u 4L+
'41
o a
v s �
7 .W M
m C
m +i r
to m v
+� m
C 0 [L
.0 d U
m .A 0
m «+ O
L 3 • w
14
>r m m 41 w
Y ro 0 +I
t40 � u pt
a m ro d
7 4
C b' bt
O C L
a L v V
7 0 U Y
SQ OU Od 3
Y
C C a >
o m e >
a d o
M 0 L L
N O y
d 1-141 d
W m M d
o to41
C
Www °C
4 t -I d
00 c 3 .to
N
-8-
ay
�
N 4 O
N-
L
L
O
O
N
m
O V
0
4
�a~
000
0000
000
W
a
4
O f
m
m
i i,
d
t m
a�
W
d
^
0
ty
000
-4,40O
000
4
Oa
M M
Y
Q
0
m
m Y
W
L t6
C
>a
m c
,•-i o 0
0 0 .� .-i
.a .y
sui y
i 0
3
C
a
S
d
1
y
c
0
0
+I
.i
U
m G
Vol M
d
M
m i
m
W
a
) w
o
t
w
3
e
4jj
y y
s� -U
y
ski
a d
ccGG
u 9 m
Z 3
u 0 m m
Z R7 3
to m
7 m m
W
u u V
N
VOl
to '30
a ro N
7
c br rn
o e
t
y
ji
� y
10
f m
T
umi
Y
'O d
t1
O W c
>
d
y
4m d
(W
B1 M
41
4 O=
C
6
to
0w
r-4 u
d
N
N
O
w ~
7
N
W
to Ow4)
c
yL4
tWi)
O
O
O a� -
w L4
w
Aj
0
.�.
rl
s+ C
y -O
si x
LL
WC
7fA
7pa
'Eg^.
H
ppa
., y�
�Gq0
41 S
w7
W
-8-
I-)
11
III. LACUNA NIGUEL DWROVffiENTS
The improvements proposed for inclusion in the Laguna Niguel area are based
on the recommendations from the Laguna Niguel Comprehensive Traffic Study
completed in 1983 by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc., and Runzman Associates. The
proposed fee program includes most of the improvements proposed by the
Laguna Niguel Comprehensive Traffic Study. The improvements and their
estimate of cost are listed below:
Intersection
1. Crown Valley Pkwy./Cabot
2. Crown Valley Pkwy./Greenfield Street
3. Crown Valley Pkwy./Niguel Road
4. Crown Valley Pkwy./Alicia Parkway
5. Crown Valley Pkwy./La Paz Road
6. Crown Valley Pkwy./Golden Lantern
7. Paseo de Colinas/Golden Lantern
8. Paseo de Colinas/Cabot Road
Say
Right-of-way
Total
Estimate
$ 20,000
82,000
88,000
85,000
44,000
1,239,000
46,000
37,000
$1,641,000
$1,800,000
600,000
$2,400,000
The intersection improvements proposed by the Fee Program are features above
the normal arterial highway requirements and are described in more detail
below:
1. Crown Valley Parkway/Cabot Road
Improvements at this intersection include the modification of the median
and southerly curbs of Crown Valley Parkway to accommodate two westbound
left -turn lanes into Cabot Road.
2. Crown Valley Parkway/Greenfield
The access to the SJSTC necessitates the provision of providing two
northbound left -turn lanes. The existing median in Crown Valley Parkway
will have to be modified to accept the left -turn lanes.
3. Crown Valley Parkway/Niguel Road
The improvements slated for this intersection require the modification
of the existing median in Crown Valley Parkway to provide dual left -turn
lanes southbound and the modification of the easterly curbs. Also
Niguel Road will be widened to add two westbound right -turn lanes.
4. Crown Valley Parkway/Alicia Parkway
The improvements slated for this intersection can be accomplished within
the existing roadway improvement. The improvements will primarily
consist of restriping and signal modifications.
-9-
5. Crown Valley Parkway/La Paz Road
The improvements identified for this intersection primarily consist of
modification of the Crown Valley Parkway median to provide two
northbound left -turn lanes. In addition, the curbs on the northwest
corner require modification to accommodate the left -turn lanes. La Paz
Road improvements can be accommodated within the Master Plan roadway
width.
6. Paseo de Colinas/Street of the Golden Lantern
The intersection improvements at this location consist of modifying the
existing median improvements to accommodate the three lanes in each
direction plus a Street of the Golden Lantern northbound right -turn
lane.
7. Paseo de Colinas/Cabot Road
This future intersection has been identified for addition of a
northbound Paseo de Colinas to Cabot Road left -turn lane. The
improvement can be accomplished by modifying the median improvements of
this intersection.
8. Crown Valley Parkway/Street of the Golden Lantern/Moulton Parkway
The recommended improvements for this intersection include widening to
`! Master Plan land configurations plus the provision of dual left -turn
J lanes for all approaches, and a separate right -turn lane for southbound
Crown Valley Parkway and an eastbound right -turn lane for Moulton
Parkway. The majority of these improvements will occur adjacent to the
undeveloped portions of the surrounding area. Widening on Street of the
Golden Lantern will be necessary and will be required on either the
Texaco or Seven -Eleven parcel.
Other intersections identified in the study were not considered (Avery
Parkway under I-5) or can accommodate the recommended configuration without
structural or signal modifications (i.e., only restriping is necessary).
The eighth intersection, Crown Valley/Street of the Golden Lantern, is the
primary cost element in this program because of substantial right-of-way and
construction costs associated with the necessary realignment of the roadway.
These improvements were identified in the LNCSS report in 1983 and will be
incorporated into the fee program.
Throughout the analysis it has been assumed that, where possible, right-of-
way acquisition and roadway construction would be kept to a minimum. In
most cases, the removal of a raised median to accommodate dual left turns
and a narrowing of lanes to 11 feet where there are no adjacent curbs made
the proposed improvements fit within existing curb -to -curb width. The only
exception is Crown Valley Parkway/Street of the Golden Lantern.
A minimum 5' wide bicycle lane was accommodated at all locations. Where it
would not be possible to fit a bicycle lane within the existing curb -to -curb
=c width or along a parallel facility, right-of-way acquisition would be needed
through the intersection. Based on the foregoing assumptions, no
intersections fall in this category.
avin
IJ
IV. Area of Benefit
The methodology used to determine the Area of Benefit (AOB) consisted of
determining the influence that the proposed Moulton Parkway and Laguna
Niguel area improvements have on trips within South Orange 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 Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM)Z.
The model subdivides Orange County and portions of adjacent Los Angeles
County into more than 500 traffic analysis zones (TAZ). The model estimates
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
based on the County's OCP -85 growth forecast.
Using the trip -making data described above, a select link analysis (program
UROAD3) was performed independently for the Moulton and Laguna Niguel areas
to determine the number of trip ends which originate in, or are destined
for, each traffic analysis zone (TAZ). These user TAZ trip ends were used
in conjunction with the total TAZ trip ends to compute the percentage of
trip ends by TAZ which use selected links within the Moulton Parkway
Corridor and the Laguna Niguel area. The resulting percentages are shown on
TAZ maps in 58 increments. (Exhibits II and III)
The zones which use the proposed improvements become pronounced at the 158
and greater trip use level as shown on the exhibits. The pattern of usage
becomes erratic below the 158 level. Therefore, the pattern or area
established by the 158 and greater trip level was used to define the general
area of primary influence for the Moulton Parkway improvements and the
Laguna Niguel improvements.
The trip end analysis also indicated a substantial overlap of benefits
between the two areas of primary influence. Roadway improvements in the
Moulton Parkway area provide secondary, or cross benefits to the Laguna
Niguel area residences and businesses. The converse is also true. Roadway
improvements in the Laguna Niguel area provide secondary benefits to the
Moulton Parkway residences and businesses. Consequently, the two areas of
primary influence were combined to form the Area of Benefit with two
separate fee zones.
1 UTPS is a battery of sophisticated computer programs developed and sponsored
by the Federal Urban Mass Transportation Agency (UMTA) for forecasting travel
demand.
2 Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) travel demand forecasting
model developed by EMA/Transportation Planning Division.
3 UROAD is one of the computer programs in UTPS. It is a comprehensive flexible
highway assignment and analysis program.
-11-
The determination of the refined AOS for the Fee Program was based on the
.� following criteria:
o Include all zones with 158 or more user trip ends.
o Consider only unincorporated territory in order to minimize potential
complications involved with multi -jurisdictional authorities.
o Use property ownership boundaries closely approximating the TAZ
boundaries to describe the benefit areas.
V. Distribution of Fees
Distribution of Fees was established for the Moulton Parkway/Laguna Niguel
Fee Program by calculating the amount of user trip ends that originate or
end within each of the zones which are attributable to new growth. Growth
in trip ends were calculated by land use categories, based on growth from
1985 to the County's adopted General Plan. OCPAM socioeconomic data
(OCP -85) provided the growth forecast for each land use category. Upon
calculation of growth, trip rate factors were applied to provide an estimate
of growth in trip ends by land use categories. (Exhibits IV and V)
The following generic land use categories were considered in the analysis:
o Residential Single Family Dwelling Units (SDU)
o Residential Multiple Family Dwelling Units (MDU)
o Non-residential land uses
J1 Prior to applying trip rates to the non-residential land use category,
retail and non -retail employment estimates from the OCTAM socioeconomic data
were converted to square footage. The non -retail employment was first
subdivided into manufacturing and office/other by applying split factors of
.2245 and .7755, respectively. The split factors are based upon the Orange
County Transportation Commission's MMTS II employment projections for
manufacturing SIC1 category and staff analysis of city and county land use
plans. The employee to square footage conversion factors used are based on
regional averages and are as follows:
Land Use Conversion Factor
Retail 500 sq. ft. per employee
Manufacturing 525 sq. ft. per employee
Office/Other 225 sq. ft. per employee .
An adjustment was made to the projected trip ends for retail land uses,
prior to the summation of the trip ends from each of the more specific non-
residential land uses. This adjustment was an attempt to reflect the
benefits to residential land uses which accrue from construction of retail
development, particularly neighborhood/community commercial establishments.
Neighborhood/community commercial primarily benefits local residents by
16tandard industrial Classification, U.S. Department of Commerce
-12-
■
providing an opportunity to shop close to home. Many of the trip ends
typically assigned to local retail uses are accounted for by these short
trips arriving from and returning to residences. These residential -related
trip ends actually provide savings in travel costs due to the short nature
of the trip. Additionally, 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, 208 of the trip ends attributable
to retail commercial development were reassigned to residential land uses as
a measure of this increased benefit.
The reassigned trip ends were split between SDU and MDU residential land
uses based upon their respective trip ends due to growth. The adjusted trip
ends are shown in Table II.
TABLE II
ADJUSTED TRIP ENDS
Generated Adjusted
Land Use Category Trip Ends Trip Ends
MOULTON PARKWAY FEE PROGRAM
Single Family Residential Units 70,608 93,839
Multi -Unit Residential Units 185,192 246,121
Retail 420,800 336,640
LAGUNA NIGUEL FEE PROGRAM
Single Family Residential Units 73,704 95,319
Multi -Unit Residential Units 70,091 90,646
Retail 210,850 168,680
The next step in the methodology was to quantify the secondary or cross
benefit relationship between the two fee zones. Percentages of Moulton
Parkway zone and Laguna Niguel zone user trip ends within the AOB were
determined. For example, within the AOB, 91.68 of Moulton Parkway user trip
ends are in the Moulton zone and 8.48 are in the Laguna Niguel zone.
Therefore, 91.68 of the Moulton Parkway improvement cost was allocated to
the Moulton zone and the remaining 8.48 was allocated to the Laguna zone.
Improvement costs in the Laguna Niguel area were allocated in a similar
manner. Tables III and IV summarize the percentage of user trip ends and
the cost allocated to each fee zone.
-13-
:>t
0
TABLE III
9
CROSS BENEFIT ANALYSES BY FEE ZONES
Moulton Parkway User Trip Ends Trip Ends
Trip ends in Moulton zone 223,437
Trip ends in Laguna Zone 20,458
Total 243,895
Laguna Niguel User Trip Ends
Trip ends in Laguna Zone 135,332
Trip ends in Moulton Zone 37,443
Total 172,775
TABLE IV
ALLOCATION OF TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS BY FEE ZONES
Moulton Fee Zone Allocated Cost
Moulton: ($13,500,000 x .916) $12,366,000
Laguna: ($2,400,000 x .217) $ 520,800
Total $12,886,800
Laguna Fee Zone
Laguna: ($2,400,000 x .783) $ 1,879,200
Moulton: ($13,500,000 x .084) $ 1,134,000
Total $ 3,013,200
Percentage
91.68
8.48
100.08
78.38
21.78
100.08
Percentage
96.08
4.08
100.08
62.48
37.68
100.08
The final step in the methodology was to calculate an average cost per trip
end. This calculation is simply the costs allocated to each fee zone
divided by the growth in trip ends. Fees for SDU's and MDU's were
calculated by multiplying the appropriate trip rate by the average cost per
trip end which also took into consideration secondary benefits received from
the adjacent zone. Fees for the non-residential land use category was
calculated by first subtracting the total residential share of fees from the
total improvement costs, then dividing the remaining cost by the total
growth in square feet of building area. The fee calculations are summarized
below and detailed in Exhibits IV and V.
Fees by Areas of Benefit
Land Use
Single Family Dwelling Units
Multi -family Dwelling Units
Non-reaidential
Fees
Moulton Parkway Laguna Niguel
$235/unit $129/unit
$137/unit $75/unit
$0.47/sq, ft. $0.55/sq. ft.
Since a portion of the fees collected within a fee zone includes secondary
benefits received from improvements in the adjacent zone, a percentage of
the fee must be deposited in the appropriate adjacent account. The
allocation percentages are shown in Table IV.
5X13
VI. Description of Area of Benefit_(AOB)
The Area of Benefit that is proposed for the Moulton Parkway/Laguna Niguel
Fee Program is shown on Exhibit I. The AOB is composed of the Moulton
Parkway Zone and the Laguna Niguel Zone. The two zone boundaries are
described below. Both zones are in close proximity to the proposed
improvements and reflect a total area that will benefit from the
improvements to be funded by the proposed fees.
Moulton Parkway Zone Boundary Description:
The Moulton Parkway Zone is bounded by the San Diego Freeway (U.S.
Interstate Route 405): beginning at the intersection of said San Diego
Freeway with the centerline of Crown Valley Parkway; thence southwesterly
along the centerline of said Crown Valley Parkway to the proposed San
Joaquin Bills Transportation Corridor; thence northwesterly along the
centerline of said proposed San Joaquin Bills Transportation Corridor to the
southerly boundary of the Nellie Gail Ranch Planned Community, thence
southwesterly along said southerly boundary of the Nellie Gail Ranch Planned
Community to the southerly boundary of the Country Village Planned
Community; thence westerly along said southerly boundary of the Country
Village Planned Community to the proposed southerly extension of Moulton
Parkway; thence southerly along the centerline of said Moulton Parkway to
Aliso Creek Road; thence westerly along the centerline of said Aliso Creek
Road to La Paz Road; thence southerly along the centerline of said La Paz
Road to the common boundary between the Laguna Niguel Regional Park and the
Laguna Niguel Planned Community Area M; thence southwesterly along said
Jcommon boundary between the Laguna Niguel Regional Park and the Laguna
Niguel Planned Community Area M to the southerly boundary of the Rite Bill
Planned Community; thence continuing southwesterly along said southerly
boundary of the Rite Bill Planned Community to Alicia Parkway; thence
southeasterly along the centerline of said Alicia Parkway to Crown Valley
Parkway; thence southerly along the centerline of said Crown Valley Parkway
to Pacific island Drive; thence northwesterly along said Pacific island
Drive to the southerly boundary of the Laguna Niguel Planned Community;
thence southerly and westerly along said southerly boundary of the Laguna
Niguel Planned Community to the westerly boundary of the Laguna Niguel
Planned Community; thence northerly and easterly along said westerly
boundary of the Laguna Niguel Planned Community to the southerly boundary of
the Aliso Viejo Planned Community; thence continuing northwesterly from said
southerly boundary of the Aliso Viejo Planned Community along the
southwesterly boundary of the Aliso Viejo Planned Community to the easterly
boundary of the City of Laguna Beach; thence northerly along said easterly
boundary of the City of Laguna Beach to a point lying on the common boundary
between the Aliso Viejo Planned Community and the unincorporated County area
known as "Old Top of the World"; thence easterly and northerly, from said
point, along the common boundary between the Aliso Viejo Planned Community
and the unincorporated County area known as "Old Top of the World" to the
easterly boundary of the City of Laguna Beach; thence continuing westerly
and northerly along said easterly boundary of the City of Laguna Beach to
the easterly boundary of the Laguna Laurel Planned Community; thence
southwesterly along said easterly boundary of the Laguna Laurel Planned
Community to Laguna Canyon Road; thence northerly along the centerline of
-15-
said Laguna Canyon Road to the southerly boundary of the City of Irvine;
thence continuing easterly, southeasterly and northeasterly along said
southerly boundary of the City of Irvine to Lake Forest Drive; thence
easterly along the centerline of said Lake Forest Drive to the San Diego
Freeway; thence southerly along said San Diego Freeway to the beginning.
Laguna Niguel Zone Boundary Description:
The Laguna Niguel Zone is bounded by the City of San Juan Capistrano:
beginning at the most northerly point within the City of San Juan Capistrano
(also described as the northerly intersection of the westerly and easterly
boundaries of the City of San Juan Capistrano); thence southerly, from said
most northerly point, along the westerly boundary of the City of San Juan
Capistrano to the intersection with the northerly boundary of Tract
No. 4986; thence southerly, from said intersection, along the westerly
boundary of Tract No. 4986 to the northerly boundary of Tract No. 8090;
thence westerly from said northerly boundary of Tract No. 8090 to the
easterly boundary of Tract No. 10468; thence southerly along said easterly
boundary of Tract No. 10468 to the easterly boundary of Tract No. 10040;
thence continuing southerly along said easterly boundary of Tract No. 10040
to the easterly boundary of Tract No. 5668; thence continuing southerly
along said easterly boundary of Tract No. 5668 to the easterly boundary of
Tract No. 5735; thence continuing southerly from said easterly boundary of
Tract No. 5735 to the centerline of Stonehill Drive; thence westerly along
said centerline of Stonehill Drive to the centerline of Niguel Road; thence
northerly along the centerline of said Niguel Road to the southerly boundary
of the Bear Brand Hill Planned Community; thence westerly along said
southerly boundary of the Bear Brand Hill Planned Community to the easterly
boundary of the Laguna Niguel Planned Community (which is generally bisected
by Clubhouse Drive); thence southerly along said easterly boundary of the
Laguna Niguel Planned Community to Crown Valley Parkway; thence northerly
along the centerline of said Crown Valley Parkway to Alicia Parkway; thence
northerly along the centerline of said Alicia Parkway to the southerly
boundary of the Rite Hill Planned Community; thence easterly along said
southerly boundary of the Kite Hill Planned Community to the westerly
boundary of the Laguna Niguel Planned Community Area M; thence northerly
along said westerly boundary of the Laguna Niguel Planned Community Area M
to La Paz Road; thence northwesterly along the centerline of said La Paz
Road to Aliso Creek Road; thence easterly along the centerline of said Aliso
Creek Road to the proposed southerly extension of Moulton Parkway; thence
northerly along the centerline of said proposed southerly extension of
Moulton Parkway to the southerly boundary of the Country Village Planned
Community; thence easterly along said southerly boundary of the Country
Village Planned Community to the southerly boundary of the Nellie Gail Ranch
Planned Community; thence continuing easterly along said southerly boundary
of the Nellie Gail Ranch Planned Community to the proposed San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor; thence southeasterly along the centerline of said
proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor to Crown Valley Parkway;
thence northeasterly along the centerline of said Crown Valley Parkway to
proposed Trabuco Creek Road; thence southwesterly along the centerline of
said proposed Trabuco Creek Road to the northerly boundary of the City of
San Juan Capistrano; thence continuing northwesterly along said northerly
boundary of the City of San Juan Capistrano to the beginning.
-16-
VII. CRITERIA FOR COLLECTION OP FEES
The County's enabling ordinance provides for collection of fees as a
condition of final map approval or issuance of building permits. However,
as a result of Assembly Bill No. 3314, Section 53077.5 was added to the
Government Code which prohibits payment of fees on new residential
developments only until the date of final inspection or issuance of use and
occupancy whichever occurs later. Consequently, residential structures only
will be required to pay the adopted fees at the time of final inspection or
at issuance of the Certificate of Use and Occupancy whichever occurs later.
Commercial/industrial and other structures will be required to pay the
adopted fees prior to issuance of building permits. 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.
VIII. DEVELOPMENT EXACTIONS & CREDITS
Development Projects containing portions of the proposed improvements within
their boundaries shall be required by condition of approval of County to
accomplish the following:
1. Dedicate right-of-way in accordance with schematic plans approved by the
County.
2. Construct improvements proposed by fee program in accordance with
improvement plans approved by the County and shown on the Tentative
Tract Map, Parcel Map or Site Plan.
Subdivisions in which right-of-way and improvements are identified in the
fee programs and required as a condition of development will be eligible for
credit toward payment of the fees to the extent that the costs are included
in the fee program. Whenever subdivisions are conditioned to improve
portions of arterial highways 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 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 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 portions of the fee improvements or dedicate right-of-way,
reimbursement agreements shall be executed prior to issuance of any building
permits within the project boundaries. .
Developers will be allowed to apply credits earned on one project to another
project within the same area of benefit owned by the same developer. In the
-17-
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 improvements or right-of-way dedication.
However, no reimbursements shall be made until all improvements or
dedication are completed and accepted by the Board of Supervisors 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, and 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. The memorandum from W. E. Price to H. I. Nakasone, dated
October 24, 1986, will be used as a guide in determining credits for
right-of-way dedication. The engineer report and cost estimate prepared
by California Civil Inc. for Moulton Parkway will also be used as a
guide for determining improvement credits on Moulton Parkway.
2. Drainage Structures
l Credit will be given for drainage structures in accordance with unit
J prices estimated as costs in the fee program or for as -built structures
which the Director, PMA 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, plus a contingency credit of 108 of the
drainage structure credit will be added.
3. 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 108 for contingencies.
The credit rates specified above will be revised whenever the
improvement cost estimates are revised for the purpose of adjusting
fees. Once fee credits are established by an executed reimbursement
agreement, no further adjustments will be made to those credits because
of revisions to the cost estimates or fee adjustments.
ZX. FEE ADJUSTMENT
It is intended that the fee program be submitted to the Board of Supervisors
when necessary for fees to be adjusted due to updated project cost
estimates, considerations of substantial changes in general plan land use
,y elements, or effect of other pertinent information which may also be cause
for adjustment of the fees by the Board of Supervisors.
-18-
In the event an evaluation of the fee programs causes fees to be reduced for
any reasons, reimbursements will not be considered for fees already paid.
X. EXERTIONS
Properties which are exempt from payment of property taxes will generally be
exempt from payment of fees. Government owned and constructed facilities
and utilities will be exempt unless the facility is used for commercial or
revenue generating purposes.
_J
-19-
MOULTON PARKWAY/LAGUNA NIGUEL
AREA OF BENEFIT
NATI
ry W
BEAM
Moulton Parkway Fee Zone
Laguna Niguel Fee Zone
SH
-21-
EXHIBIT U
-)
_22_
EXHIBIT M
.)
EXHIBIT IV
SUMMARY OF FEE CALCULATIONS
MOULTON PARKWAY
Socioeconomic Data (OCP -85)
Land Use Category
Single Family Dwelling Units
Multi -family Dwelling Units
Retail Employment
Total Employment
1985
Buildout
Growth
7,635
13,519
5,884
16,299
42,755
26,456
5,613
14,029
8,416
15,616
66,730
51,114
Projected Growth in industrial/Commercial Floor Space
Retail (Sq. Ft.)
Manufacturing (Sq. Ft.) (.2245)
Office/Other (Sq. Ft.) (.7755)
Total Growth in Floor Space (Sq. Ft.)
Trip End Growth by Land Use Trip Rate Factors
Single Family Dwelling (12 T.E./D.U.)
Multi -family Dwelling (7 T.E./D.U.)
Retail (100 T.E./ksf)
Manufacturing (10 T.E./ksf)
Office/Other (20 T.E./ksf)
Total Trip Ends
Adjusted Improvement Costs
Average Cost per Trip End
$12,886,800 r 875,930 = $14.71
4,208,000
5,032,493
7,450,267
16,690,760
Generated
Trip Ends
70,608
185,192
420,800
50,325
149,005
875,930
$12,886,800
Fees for Residential Units (Using Adjusted Trip Ends)
SDU (Per Unit) = 15.95 T.E./Unit x $14.71 $234.62
MDU (Per Unit) = 9.30 T.E./Unit x $14.71 = $136.80
Total Residential Fees
SDU = 5,884 Units x $235/Unit $ 1,382,740
MDU = 26,456 Units x $137/Unit $ 3,624,472
Total Residential Share of Fees = $ 5,007,212
Adjusted
Trip Ends*
Rounded
Fees
$235
$137
93,839
246,121
336,640
*Reallocated 208 of the trip ends attributable to retail land uses over to
residential land uses.
-23-
I7
LI
Non -Residential Fees
Non -Residential Share of Fees
$12,886,800 - $5,007,212
Non -Residential Fee
$7,879,588 a 16,690,760 sq. ft.
-24-
$ 7,879,588
$0.47 sq. ft.
0
I�
Projected Growth in industrial/Commercial Floor Space
Retail (Sq. Ft.)
Manufacturing (Sq. Ft.) (.2245)
Office/Other (Sq. Ft.) (.7755)
Total Growth in Floor Space (Sq. Ft.)
Trip End Growth by Land Use Trip Rate Factors
Single Family Dwelling (12 T.E./D.U.)
Multi -family Dwelling (7 T.E./D.U.).
Retail (100 T.E./ksf)
Manufacturing (10 T.E./ksf)
Office/Other (20 T.E./ksf)
Total Trip Ends
Adjusted Improvement Costs
Average Cost per Trip End
$3,013,200 - 363,893 - $8.28
2,108,500
233,485
345,660
2,687,645
Generated
Trip Ends
73,704
70,091
210,850
2,335
6,913
363,893
$3,013,200
Fees for Residential Units (Using Adjusted Trip Ends)
SDU (Per Unit) - 15.52 T.E./Unit x $8.28 = $128.51
MDU (Per Unit) = 9.05 T.E./Unit x $8.28 = $74.93
Total Residential Fees
SDU = 6,142 Units x $129/Unit $ 792,318
MDU - 10,013 Units x $75/Unit $ 750,975
Total Residential Share of Fees $1,543,293
Adjusted
Trip Ends*
Rounded
Fees
$129
$ 75
95,319
90,646
168,680
*Reallocated 208 of the trip ends attributable to retail land uses over to
residential land uses.
-25-
EXHIBIT V
SUMMARY OF FEE CALCULATIONS
LAGUNA NIGUEL
Socioeconomic Data (OCP -85)
Land Use Category
1985
Buildout
Growth
Single Family Dwelling Units
4,653
10,795
6,142
Multi -family Dwelling Units
2,395
12,408
10,013
Retail Employment
3,725
7,942
4,217
Total Employment
7,605
13,803
6,198
I�
Projected Growth in industrial/Commercial Floor Space
Retail (Sq. Ft.)
Manufacturing (Sq. Ft.) (.2245)
Office/Other (Sq. Ft.) (.7755)
Total Growth in Floor Space (Sq. Ft.)
Trip End Growth by Land Use Trip Rate Factors
Single Family Dwelling (12 T.E./D.U.)
Multi -family Dwelling (7 T.E./D.U.).
Retail (100 T.E./ksf)
Manufacturing (10 T.E./ksf)
Office/Other (20 T.E./ksf)
Total Trip Ends
Adjusted Improvement Costs
Average Cost per Trip End
$3,013,200 - 363,893 - $8.28
2,108,500
233,485
345,660
2,687,645
Generated
Trip Ends
73,704
70,091
210,850
2,335
6,913
363,893
$3,013,200
Fees for Residential Units (Using Adjusted Trip Ends)
SDU (Per Unit) - 15.52 T.E./Unit x $8.28 = $128.51
MDU (Per Unit) = 9.05 T.E./Unit x $8.28 = $74.93
Total Residential Fees
SDU = 6,142 Units x $129/Unit $ 792,318
MDU - 10,013 Units x $75/Unit $ 750,975
Total Residential Share of Fees $1,543,293
Adjusted
Trip Ends*
Rounded
Fees
$129
$ 75
95,319
90,646
168,680
*Reallocated 208 of the trip ends attributable to retail land uses over to
residential land uses.
-25-
_)
Non -Residential Fees
Non -Residential Share of Fees
$3,013,200 - $1,543,293
Non -Residential Fee
$1,469,907 t 2,687,645 sq, ft.
SN:rmPWT35-3
6352
a
C214fl
•
$1,469,907
$0.55 per sq. ft.