Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989/04/05 - Agenda Packet - WorkshopCIICAMO ~,'~ ~~ QTY OF < j > R~AfN7Q 10 /CIyXyA7M7~0yIV(~',q W T r- x-11 Y WlJl wll, 0 ^ ~ ? L'YSl~l V 1-C1 1977 CZTY COUNCIL itORI:SHOP i lase _ <.nn ., Lions Park Coammnity Center 9161 Baee Line Road Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 A. CALL TO ORDER 1. Aoll Ca11: Buquet _, Alexander _, Stout _ Brown _, Wright B. NORA~,~OP ITBN WORKSHOP DSSCUSSION OP PAOPOS D COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS POR ETIW NDA HIGHLANDS TRACTS lCARYN C0MPANYI. C. CONMVNICATIONS PROM TEB PUBLIC This is the tine sad plnce for the general public to address the Citp Council. State law prohibits the Citp Council from addraadvg my isaw not previously included on the Ageada. Tha City Council asp receive testimony and vet the matter for a aubaaquent meeting. Commeat• are to be limited to five mlautea per individual. D. ADJOVRNMENT MEBTINO TO ADJOURp TO 7t30 P.N. T_-. °°_e•: crly •.- .".uthe.at, Ci Ly Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that^a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on March 31, 1989, eeventy-two (72) hours prior to the meet Lng per Government Code 54953 at 9320-C Baee Line. THE OYERIILL FISCAL IIPACT OF ETIMNRIII NORTH pl THE CITY OF RANCHO CIICAl1011611 _..~.~+~~~ .vrcrorrir ern rcis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the past several months, the Etiwanda North Landowners Consortium has had a draft Fiscal Impace Report prepared analyzing the impact on the City of Rancho Cucamonga's general fund from the proposed annexati ors of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Area. In the process of its review at that draft FIR, the City has produced an Evaluation Report which proposed that numerous new cost factors be used to calculate the true fiscal impact of that proposed annexation. This report represents a statement of the Landowner's Consortium's position on those issues which remains unresolved fn our common quest of producing a viable financial plan for Etiwanda North. Briefly, our understanding of those issues and our position is as follows: Plannin Area Versus Annexation Area: The Etiwanda North Annexation rea is a we def ne area escr bed in the Specific Plan. The logical Etiwana North Planning Area includes all property North of Highland Avenue between Day Creek and the De Vore Freeway. far the purposes of defining boundaries for Landscape Maintenance Districts, Community Faciiiif es Disiric is fur police an6 lice prti22Gii4i+ serr iocs and sharing regional transportation costs, the Planning Area should be used. For the purposes of calculating fiscal impact, the Annexation Area should be used. Unit Count: _ The Consortium has been working all along under the presumption that no member wau1C ', ase dens! ty as a result of annexing from the _ County to the City. In addition, two parcels of land owned 6y the San Bernardino County flood Control District should be designated - as developable and given a density allocation similar to neighboring parcels. AS a result, the Consortium wilt continue to insist that 5,203 be the number of units in the Annexation Area. There are an additional 1.350 units in the Planning Area outside the Rnnexa lion ~- Area. - One Time Impacts: The Consortium proposes that new fees be established for regional transportation, regional parks and libraries. Park and Streetsca a Maintenance: 1. Responding to concerns from ity sta t e rate and a era! govermments, the park element of the specific plans and proposed treatment of FCD properties has been changed. The FCD properties will no longer requt re significant annual maintenance. The new park proposal calls ror the provision of 51 acres of neighborhood parks in the Annexation Area and a cash contribution (regional perk fee) for capt tai improvements to 34 acres of the Northeast Regignal park, 2. After considerable analysis, the Consortium feels that the following cost factors should be used for annual maintenance per square foot: _ 4.335 for park areas maintained by a Landscape Maintenance District. 5.331 far park areas maintained through the City's general - fund -- 5.273 for streetscape (these are only maintained by the _ Landscape Maintenance Oi strf ct) ns a result, the Consortium believes that the maximum annual _ assessment per unit for the LMD is 5385. 3. The Consortium agrees to a fair share proportion of 50% _ of the Northeast Comnuni ty Park for purposes of maintenance. This would be fandeE by gonaral fund TE'rana25, a,,., amr.un is Le approximately 5493,000 per year, using our costs factors. _. - Finsnc 7n Police Protection Services: Ne agree with the City staff's _ request for g er po ce protect on costs than the City is currently experiencing. However, it is not necessary nor may it be appropriate _ to finance 100X of this cost through CFD special taxes. Nonetheless, we are willing to agree to the annual imposition of a nominal CFD -- special tax for this purpose so as to help set an appropriate citywide precedent. Current Estimated Fiscal [moact: The Consortium has asked Stanley ... ..-. ....-.. ..~.-~.~..... ... ~....a. ~..... un.. ~ i.n. ~ u uirya... , vu i wvu~ of the proposed annexation. For all cost and revenue factors not - explicitly mentioned here. those contained in the Evaluation Report - were used. The results of that analysts are contained here as Table ES-1. As you can see, our revs esed calculation of the net fiscal _ impact to the City 1s that annexation causes a net annual surplus at buildout of 5134,089. - Maximum Tax Rate: Nith a Landscape Maintenance Df stri ct annual - assessment of 5 and a nominal per unit 1n annua) CFD special tax for ponce protection services, we believe that the mazimum tax rate for all homeowners fn Etiwanda North will remain below the 7.80X ceiling. This includes CFD special taxes for the Foothill Fire - Protection Oi strict's CFO, as well proposed CFD's for both flood control facilities and school facil hies. _ it fs our understanding that Police CFD Library Park and Regional Transportation would have to he apps led to ail new development in _ the City in order to obey the nexus law. City staff is currently working on a review of all City fees. That review might provide - the mechanism instituting these new fees. UfBLE ES-1 ETIIIAIDA NDIRN RINE%ATION l1REA cm of RNICHO cucrtNONe~ SIMURY OF RECBRRIIIg REYk7NIFS AID COSTS TO THE CITY BENERAt FU1D (In Caintuit 1989 Dollars) Buildout Percent a~„mt of Totat ** Recurring Revenues ** m•m..... ..o...•~ua•a Property tax (862,096 80.70% Real property transfer tax 17,323 Q.15% Sales taz 628,929 22.39% ?:..-.cunt o:c.paacp t ., ~ 0 0.00% Business Ifcense tax 21,188 0.75% Franchises 186,483 6.71% Revenue from other agercles 813,806 28.98% Charges for current services 55,932 1.99% Other revenues 160,830 6,73% Total Revenues (2,808,566 100.00% •* Recurring Costs ** Po11:e 51,284,770 48.04% Streets maintenance ~ 311,538 11.65% i.v. Y, ~. •iu w•in ~auu,~e Park maintenance O,4io 188,751 V.illY 18.27% Recreation 213,560 , 7.99% Planning 0 0.00% Citywide overhead 341,098 '12.75% Contingency (1 percent) 26,480 0.99% Total Costs 52,674,477 100.00% Net Returrlrp Fiscal Impact f334,089 Recurring Revsnue/Expenditure Ratio 1.05 Source: Stanley R. Hoffmn Jlssociates, inc. i TOTFL P.01 -- Throughout Lhe planning and processing of its Specific Plan, the Et iwanda North Landowner's Consortium ("the Consortium") has been - particularly sensitive to the projected fiscal impact of our development _ on the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In light of this, the Consortium has not only hired our own consultant to prepare a draft Fiscal Impact Report (Stanley R. Hoffman Associates), but has aiso worked df ligenly with City staff to its effort to evaluate that draft FIR. The common goals of both the Consortium and City staff are to provide future residents with a sustainable high level of services, maintain an aggregate proparty -- tax rate (including all special district assessments) of not more than 7.8Y and fnsure that the development of Etiwanda North does not produce miy negative ongoing n scar impact to the City. Tne Consortium believes we have been able to achieve these three goals and provide the following '- analysis as support. This analysis will discuss both one-tine and ongoing impact to the C9 t,• ar~d idcn i..;y pruposea mingacion measures. witn respect to the ongoing fiscal impact, only those areas which either are new proposals -~ or where concensus between City staff and the Consortium has not been reached will be discussed. Further, still with respect to ongoing costs, -~- three eistinct funding mechanisms for these have been identified: (a) _ 6a se property taxes accruing to the City's general fund; (b) a Mello-Roos Community Facilitf es Dtstri ct (CFD) special tax for servies (i .e, police protection); and (c) a Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) for maintaining - streetscape and parks. Certain cost components (especially park - maintenance) will utilize some combs nand on of these three fundf ng mechanisms. Therefore, for clarity, this report will be organized by cost component rather than by funding mechanism. Finally, this report will take the City's "Evaluation Report: Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Cl. ~...J. ,I....aL ~-......-a t..- ,..-.. 1~ -• ltn 4-n.., l-- C-..~ ..L3-4 3.. J--.. • -..-...... i.-. -.• ........ n.. -....• •.~ .... .... • -.. ......- ~ ...- • ...... .... ~ .... .... .....n comparisons. I. DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND UNIT COUNT A. Plann in Area Versus Annexation Area: The Etiwanda North Annexation Area s a we nown geograp c ant ty. It is that area for which the Specific Plan fs being prepared. Generally, it extends from Day Creek on Lhe west to the De Vore Freeway on the east, north of Highland Avenue, excepting a number of parcels east of Hanley Avenue and south of Twenty-fourth Street which are already 1n the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Consortium believes that a logical Etiwanda North Planning Area also exists, encompassing all property north of Highland Avenue from the De Vora Freeway to Day Creek. In fact, this logical planning area was the basis of the district boundaries for the Foothill Fire Protection Df strict's CFD No. 88-1 for fire protection services. For the purposes of dafini,ng nn!mdarinc fnr Landsrapa Maintonanro ^istrjtrg~ inr Sharing regional transportation costs and for Commune Ly Fac111 tins Districts for police protection, the Consortium feels that the Planning Area should be used. For the purposes of calculating fiscal impact, the Annexation Area should be used. B. Unit Count: From the very inception of this process. the Consortium has been working from the presumption that no member would lose density as a result of annexing from the County to the City. Consequently. using the County's allowable base density (excepting for a reduction in pa rce7 number 35), the Consortium calculates that there are 5,203 units in the Annexation Area. Using the City's allowable _ density, with no employment of "optional standards", there are an addi tf onal 1.350 units in the planning area outside of the Annexation Area. Finally, there are 4.50 acres of commercial property in the Annexation Area, and an additional 68.93 acres in the Planning Area outside the Annexation Area. The Consortium feels that these unit totals must be used for ail Cd1C4idtfOli of fiscal ir~pact and prcposed spacizi. district - size. for convenience, a map showing all of the areas in question is included as Exhibit 1. i7. nNF 7iME IMPACTS ANO PROPOSED MiTiGATtON MEASDRES A. Re ional Trans ortatton: The preliminary estimate of regional ~- road costs for the t Wanda lorth Planning Area show a total cast of 514.019,600. Our estimate of the aggregate Systems Development Fees to be generated by this area is aDDroximately 59,986,000. In additional, we propose that an additional Regional Transportation fee of 51,200 per residential unit (or per 1,000 square feet of commercial space) be _ instituted for all new development in the City. This would generate an additional f8,666,000 in fee income for the City from the Planning - Area. Consequently, the Plannina Area would generate apDroximatety 54,633,000 in fee income for the City to use in order to rectify exf sting - transportation problems cutside the Etiwanda North Punning Area. Appendix A contains a map showing the regional roads to be constructed, the .. ,,.,. euy i,wei~a cal mo uc vi was ., v~w~vi~ w,... wn. -.~. ~tC ~t-C r~.i~ ~.. ~ ._. B. Re ionai Parks: Ne propose that the Etiwanda North Annexation area provide un s or 0% of the capital costs of the Northea se Regaional Park. Be sad on our estimated costs for that park (excluding land _ acquisition) that would require a fee of 51,065 per unit in the Annexation Area, or an aggregate cash contr7 button of 55,541.320, The cost estimate for regional park capl tai facilf ties is contained in Appendix B. C. Lf bra rtes: Ne proDose the imposltl on of a Library fee in the amount of~6 per residential unit. This would generate 57,303,750 from the Etiwanda North Annexation Area for the construction or refurbishing of library facilities. III. ONGOING IMPACTS A. Park and Streetscaoe Maintenance 1. CHANGES IN PARK PLAN. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan had originally called for the provision of parkland acreage well in excess of the City's standard. This Included 92.8 acres in unencumbered areas and 71.2 acres in encumbered areas (i.e. Edison Corridors). Furthermore, E76IIBIT 1 it was envisioned that 300 acres of land owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (FCD) would be landscaped, 80 of those - as a Dark. Finally, it was assmned that the Etiwanda North Rnnexati on Area would account for 40X of Lhe usage of the Northeast Regional Park. _ R11 of these assumptions went into Soth the draft FIR prepared for the Consortium and the City's evaluation report, An important byproduct of the evaluation report was the recognitf on - by the Consorti wn that Lhe City's cost for maintaining park and streetscape _ acreage is relatively high compared to other cities fn Southern California. Therefore, the Dark element of the land pion was thoroughly revised, _ and the Consortium now proposes to meet the City's park standards in the following manner: a). Provide 51 acres of neighborhood parks (i. e. 3 acres per 1000 population) within the Annexation Area. b). Pravf de funds for the capital improvements costs of 34 acres of the Northeast Regional Park (i.e. 2 acres per 1000 population). _ This amounts to 60i of Lhat park's improvement cost (34 out of 57 acres). See part II, Section B, above for this cost. ,_ Rddttional ly, the on gTnal land plan's treatment of FCD property _ met with considerable disapproval from the Fish and Nildlife and Fish and Game departments of the Federal and State governments, respectively. Those agencies strongly prefer that this area be returned to its native state. requiring almost no maintenance after vegi tatien is re-establfshed. The consequence of this now treatment of parks and open space for _ the purpose of estimating areas to be maintained by funding source is as follows: (square teat) LMD CITY GENERAL FCD TOTAL FUND - 1. Parks 2,221.Sfi0 1,481,040 0 3,702,600 2. Open Space 0 0 0 0 3. Streetscape 6,134,113 0 0 6,134,113 4. Thena• Na11s, etc. 1,026,720 0 0 1,026.720 Appendix C contains both a visual and statistical breakdown of the new on-site park proposa~, as well as the specific detail of how it has _- changed 'rom the prey?eus park plan, 2. COST FACTORS. In additional to this new smaller area to be maf ntained, the Consortium st711 believes that maJor components of the - estimated maintenance cost per square foot 1n the Evaluation Report need further discussion. That report ?solated five components of maintenance cost as follows: Basic Maintenance E0.228 per square foot Employee Benefits and Vehicles/Equip. 50.021 per square foot Utilities 50.075 per square foot Administrative Overhead %0.057 per square foot Tree Contingency SO^008 per square foot %0.395 per square foot Additionally, it was assumed that the Administrative Overhead for areas maintained by the LMD would be E.D1 per square foot higher. We would like to take a moment to discuss these cost factors on an item by item basis: Basic Maintenance While this cast per square foot is very hf gh by comparison with other Cities, the Consortium is willing to concede its validity for Dark maintenace. However, for streetscapes, our understanding is that the City contracts out for this service, and Lhat the appropriate cost is E.202 per square foot. Finally, for Theme walls, an even lower cost of f.10 per square foot is appropriate. Employee Benefits and VehicleslEguipment Agafn, this cost factor is very high. At the very least, it should not be applfetl to the st reetscape, whose maintenance is provided by a private contractor. Utilities The cost factor used in the Evaluation Report is 5.075 Der square foot, of which 90%, or E.068 per square toot, is act n ou ceu iu wa iei. This cost factor is extraordinarily high. Based on the estimate of Assocf ated Irrigation Consultants, a turfed acre in Rancho Cucamonga would require 813,000 gallons of water from irrigation per year (a turfed zc re has the grea ter irrigeti on demand). The Cucamonga County Mater District suDPlies water a a cost of 5.46 per hundred cubic feet. Converting gallons to cubic feet (one cubic foot equals 7.5 gallons) an acre wou'.d need 108,400 cubic feet of water per year from irrigation. At the cost of %.46 per hundred cubic feet, that equals 5498.64 per acre, or S.D11 per square foot per year. Evan after applying a 200% contingency, we find it hard to Justify a pro,iected annual water cost factor greater than %.035 per square foot. Ne are satisfied that the cost factor for electricity, the rematnfng 10X is accurate. Therefore, our total proposed utility costs factor per square foot is %.042, Appendix container the analysis provided by Associated lrrigaion Consultants. Administrative Overhead During our discussions with staff on thfs issue, it has become apparent that the Evaluation Report assumes that Administration and Overhead costs vary 100X with District size. In fact, the Consortium's ff scal impact consultant suggests that the relationship between increases in size and increases 1n overhead type expenses for ell types of governmental agencies ranges from 40% to 60X. Further dfscussion suggest that services Like park or streetscape maintenance are less administration intensive Lhan such activities as Community Services (e.g. recreation. adult education, etc.) or Police Protection. Therefore, we feel that a 60X reduction in the overall allocation for Administration and Overhead is warranted. With regard to the extra Administration and Overhead cost factor for the LMD, we concede that there is some added cost for administration which is specific to the process of putting special district assessments on the annual tax roll. The City's charge for Lhis is $4.00 per parcel, or approximately E25,000 per year at buildout. The $.O1 per square foot cost factor, on Lhe other hand, generates in excess of E90,000 per year in extra revenue. Given this discrepency, and lack of any other data, we suggest the same 60X correction for fixed overhead costs be applied. The resultant Administration and Overhead cost factors far maintenance are E.023 per square foot for zreas maintained by the City's general fund revenues and f.027 for areas maintained by the LIB. Given all the foregoing, our analysis suggests the following aggregate cost factors: E0.335 for parks maintained by an LMD. 50.331 for parks maintained by the City's general fund #0.273 fer streetscape (only maintained by an LhID) Table 1 shows the effect of these changes on the estimated annual assessment for the proposed LMD #7. For convenience, it also shows the estimated annual assessment given the cost factors in the Evaluation Report, but applying Lhem to the new quantities of area to oe maintained. REGIONAL PARK MAINTENANCE SHARE The draft FIR prepared for the Consortium calculated Etiwanda North's fair share of the maintenance cost far the Norihease Regi anal Park tc be 40X. The evaluation report suggests that, due to the fact that little other new development would occur within the park's service area, Etiwanda North should oa,y 100X of the maintenance cost. As a comporomise, and consistent with other components of our park proposal, the Consortium now suggests that Etiwanda North be charged for 60X of the Park's annual maintenance. The cost would be funded from the City's general fund. B. Line Item Contingency: The Evaluation Report suggests thai a line item for contingency be added to the FIR. It is our beliefe that a substantial line item for contingency would be justifiable if current budgets and service levels were used to calculate other cost components in the Evaluation Report while these service levels are recognized as being deficient. In the case of the Evaluation Report, however, service standards and costs are adjusted on a line by line basis, aleviating the need for contingency. Therefore, we would like Lo see this reduced to no more than one percent of all the other costs. if not eliminated altogether. C. Financinc Police Pretectier. Service=_: The draft FIR calculated the annual cost for police protection in Etiwanda North to be EI ,096,770 (1489 dollars) at buildout. The Evaluation Report suggests that this needs to 6e increased by 10X, for a total cost at buildout of 57,284,751. City staff further suggests that 100X of this cost should be funded from CFD spectlal tax revenues. The Consortium wishes to cooperate 1n the effort to Drovide a greater level of police protection service and we have no disagreement with the projected costs. However, we feel that the funding mechanism deserves some further con 5lderat7on. It had been our understanding that only that portion of the police protection costs which are above and beyond the present budget's costs r7me 1 clriore ae LIIg9FJJPY nitteunrs ~ PWPoSID LAIOSdeC gltt017111P 8lSRICT b. 7 1 a s4eP~lscc2Pe clns wcuu ae BOAP. Fie LYOOY7~•s w7Ln7ipl's aw,uis [rgy asp tt 1 ~ 9w192r U16T u sp Et t ae swat cmt e7sic gI7RFYAYCE >D.Zm 56.701 aI,39e,sn 7o.2w 73.291 m.226,ez3 6'tlPldiPa 1Bq'irs 4 9©I[OJ57Ip !0.027 6.67t !165.411 q O.OOt ao - UTILItIY6 !0.075 18.521 7160,059 lD.012 15.79f Y87,633 AOYIY[S1RA7IYC O9pI1ff1,0 'A.067 1fi.51t !110,996 80,027 9.924 7161,391 TRFP C01Ri9®IC7 lD.008 1.98f !19.073 80.001 1A9S Y25,000 - N1'AL !0.105 100.001 32,1N,316 80.273 100.001 a1 X673,850 2J PARRS Cin'6 AlIAL45I5 OP [7AFT FIe LAI®OY194'6 COYSwT1UY'6 AYAL4816 iif11 !/ Sp ET a OF ww6T CO61 !/ SO F} t OF BUWEI C05T o~eir r~.uaeulwm 7n.i7A 96.301 !506.516 !0.229 68.051 !506,516 ©@IOYFE B09tIT6 6 VENICLGS/D3 !0.027 6.671 !59,972 70.027 8.06t !59.982 OTIL[TIES 40.075 16,Sri !166.617 !0.012 12.511 793,306 AwIYI511UTIVC OYC9iff.A8 !0,067 16,511 8118,815 7D.027 BOOS !59,538 TRCC COYTIMG©IICY !0,008 1,981 717,772 70.01! 3.3df 325,000 HN?.L 70~f05 109.001 !899,732 !0.335 100.00t 7711,311 3.) OeC01~75® QIAYISE q q q !0.0500 100.001 7)7.308 1.) 11kME L Fll}R4 YALIS 70.110 IOO.OOR !30,961 lO.IOw 100.001 !28,056 mr1i. OF iT~ ty YA q l3.Ii3Ai2 q q 02,;63,555 TOTAI. wits 6.851 fi.151 NST PF9 817 ~~ an 8795 - would be financed through the CFD. Ne believe that this sets an appropriate and sustainable precedent for a police protection special - tax on all new development. Alternatively, we would be willing to see that portion of ponce protection costs shifted to the CFD speci a7 tax so as to bring the pro3ect's fiscal impact on the City's general fund _ into balance. Based upon calculatf on of the revised project fiscal impact on Lhe City's general fund it does not appear that any of the police - protection services need to be ff nanced through the CFD. Nontheless, we are willing to agree to the annual imposition of a nominal LFD specie; ecn io, .u.a yc~ywc av m w imy ac.. an ayy.vyr ,ow . y..,..c y. c..c.,c~... IV. CURRENT ESTIMATED fISCAI IMPACT AND M4%IMUM TAX AATE The Consortium has asked Stanley R. Noffman Associates to show the aggregate fiscal impact or. ~ City of Rancho Cucamonga from rho annexation given the new assumption discussed above. For all components of the fiscal impact not explicitly discussed above, the Evaluation Report's assumption were used. A table showing this aggregate impact is loci uded as Table ES-1 Tn the Executive Summary of this rpeort. As you can see, that table shows that the Annexation Area contributes 52,808,566 to the City's general fund at buildout, while creating 52,674,479 in addi ti onai costs, for an annual surplus of 5134.084. 61 van this surplus. it would not be necessary to fund any of this pro,{ect's police protection costs through a CFD. However, in an effort to help the City establish what we feel to be a necessary precedent. the Consortium agrees to the ingosi lion of a nominal CFD special tax per unit for police protection servfces. Given these levels for LMD and CFD service taxes, and taking into -- account the special taxes roc cne Feeiiiiii sire "r, ui.e..Limi vial,, i,.~'> CFD /88-1 and a proposed City CFD for flood control facilitf es. taxes on homeowners in Etiwanda North wilt remain Delow the 1.80X - ceiling that Doth the City and the Consortium wish to mafnta in. In fact, there would be further remaining capacity for additional - CFD special taxes. These could be used to finance either faciiiti es for the Etlwanda School District, regional roads or other regional improvement. xY,~' *. APPENDIX A RE6IOllAI RDAD CDSTS AND TRANSPDRTATIDN FEE GLCUUTp15 ': ;no: 19e9 1990 11991 11992 ETIWANDA NORTH -PHASING EXHIBITS ARTERIAL ROADWAYS Osiginai Poor Oual~t`~ s~zsasgeaxsBgq=sx=R.'BSFGa.°~_Sa_a63tae~aRRRSR5ta5tsaE€!s ~~ &Aia~$sa~i9F~S3~9~9~0a~~g~€~x~~3~s3a3~~i3~~8S~R°c,~~x X91$~~`saseesassxa@aassasaaasaaasesaaasasasxgaaaasslg ~~ ~~~ q rt a °waxa•nsas~nsRs~~~~S~a~S°S4°$$I° ^~~~ ~~sgaQRS~s~asq+e;=sscaRS~a~usss$esaeuaxxxeag~~aaak ,,c ~ en eaa;_ ~ &93~«a k~~~3~~«& ~~'aiS~~~§sasasa~~ a~~~_~a~RRxs!~ e eeeeFP4~ a~Ifi38: iF~F$-=$ 5~9RF =BRRkuxari~oRaexaxecwnR cv !e ~ YV--- ^_ry ~~~« .. .. ° rw °u°w~.xaaxs°aaAa..R ^x° ~^ ~¢ °°~ ~ aa.xaxgsss~assq~sseoa~aFS~xgpa__xsaaaaa~ssavaaq!s ~I ~IF'f9aa3fRR~S~~gg~~p~E~A~AF~p~~yR&~~~~R~~q~x~~8,~~$A~8R~~~ ~ ; @@~ E ~~Iga~xi~a_:~w~~:~.]i~S~~~~.=_.Y«CQaII~~RCCBa~~~~a;~ A~ ~_Is °' R q °o°eoe» ° ~RSaSSaaEaRa8888RRRRR88889aa&RBaaaa88888E$888aS.'= ~~r~~~'= to i °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° w ~ ~ , ~:` ~ ~I~ _al a x^^ ~I^~~Rgl~~~ gel ~ I~«&9«~88~~&~°a,9«!$~d$~a~u~$~$§$~fl$HP~€~~~E~RE~s$$i~ g ~~° ~ ~sXaRRa ~~ RR~R1BRa8Ra.'t,RR8KRy=R~°°S8Skd2GRR~.^,SRYRSR,~..88R8FStl& 31.A~~T.Z «4 ~ ~ ~'P°A ~AI9JA7 Je.RR_1P°aN~RRSRaGFRaT..~8SRC8"~,tfJB~'~'~'SR.FJ.k..^~ ~ I ~' 65w a~ b~~~~R.Sk39RSk°RR''~~~_'9~98s~7_~9:Sa~80A~RRRA=4°^=°.°.OiR 6g ne. p~ I„ ~9af~8g~ ~°I .. bbbbb8 ~C yd e Y Y Y ~ ~ g9 plL0E0~~ ~~ a ~I~ ~ ~ ~p~~° d~~ ~ EEE ~ ~ ~ ~E E ~ ~ ~111~1~. ~~ ~ ~ ~p~~€~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ C IITJ.~xxX.i.S°°-C~YIT9~~Sp~~M~~~fl~{iAA~RR~~'~*~RMRRRIIC°I~ .. ~• ~..~x:r ~?aat~~~ ~~ rise ~~eae~ s~~ _ apsegpoa F 8,$8$$$$8 ° ~~~~~C SaeBLT$6i ~' @@@C[~ 333333 888883i~ ~I~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~&~ a B ~ ~flR8R38 8~ yy;48~E0 wE~ b~q~~n6 &o ° 1-B~ES~`M ~~ rrrpr_ ~~ ~tCCCCO~ ~~ pr~ ~ ae~ae ~ ~~~~~~tR ~~ a~ ~G RStY88R883RR85t8I8 6 CC ~Ro~SA~3a~RS,~ = ~ ~ '~k~~aa~~~~$~HB~ a e ®I ° ~1° ee ~~~~~~~3~a~aa' R3388A883t~R8 R.4, ~ .^~, ~s8 a?3~3kw~~$ >F g ~~laia. aB:a~$ Ise R y'R38~8=Lt,BtSCSRR ^; 8 ® $px~~G~~~f~p~1p3~~~ r ~~ a~ia:t.~0009C~'A ~ 'n r asssesasesssaa ~ F® ~~EB~~~~~~~~3~9 >~ ~ ~~ ~- =_ R 8 C I°°°°°°°°°°°o°°'a a ~I pdI ~~~8~8~8888~g~1a a A 8~%=86ASSS~S[89 $ S _80319=R^-F0'.IC I ~ -~., ~I° ~.. ®n°Ia~sa3Rasascaaa ~ n 9" e ~~ ~ ~;r~ 1~11~~~ . ~ 5~~~~~~~r~E6 Yr:xS_zzRa>yd~~ 4 ~ ~ ~ xrr~o-x e ..rn,Iru o~or rnci rcir~7F5 rw Land 1 Plan !Design Group Plannir~ • Urban DcsiOn • IanJuapc Archiuema COMMUNITY HUB PARK ID-4/D-5) COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY SHEET MARCH 13, 1989 ITEn ~ COSi ESTIMATE L, CONSTRUCTION 51.119,088 II. ELECTRICAL 32,140,000 III. UTILITIES 3261,436 IV.. FlJRNISHINGS AND EQUIPMENT 3129.610 ~i. BUILDING 32550.000 VI. GRADING 3207,000 HARDLOST SUBTOTAL: 26,407,134 VII. IHHIGA 11lfi ANO Vill. LANDSCAPING 32,828,400 SOFTCOST SUBTOTAL: 32.828,400 TOTAL 39,23S,S34 0'1D Nngat CwM OIM, 1u~ 100) Wr10eK MrtA CYIMI14 OON00 fl/Q 71'AItM Land /Plan /Design Group Planning • Urban Design landscape Archrtecmre ITEM OUANTITV UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COS7 ~ f(1NSTR~IfT10N I ~ ~ 8 TENNIS COURTS 57,600 SF 3.95 227,520 SLAB iW/ GRAD BEAM) (0 X 60' X 120') B TENNIS C_OUR75 _ 57.800 SF 10.35 270 Ifi0 SURFACING (8 X 60' X 120') 4 BASKETABALL COUR75 18 000 SF Y3.95 Y74,260 SLAB (W/ GRAD BEAM) (4 % 4700 SF) 6 VOLLEY BALI CWRTS 25 920 SF 1.55 40 776 -PIT SAND (10' DEEP) (6 X 60' X 729 CONCRETE PAVING 116,000 SF 3.00 348 000 (20 000 X 5.8) CONCRETE TERRACE 200 LF 35.00 9 000 SEAT WgLL (TENNIS - 1007 IDgDM1e I DALL - 1 VU 1 -~-- aaLEVSqu -Bog CONCRETE SAND-PIT 1 590 LF 0.00 12,720 CURB (6 X (72 t 60) ) CONCRETE HEADER 6' (713' X 5.0) A 135 LF 5.00 S20 675 SIGN W/ RECESSED LETTERS (2 ENTRIES) 2 EA 5000.00 10 000 METAL HANDICAPPED RAILING ' 410 LF 25.00 10250 (72 X 5.8) ~ _ SUB-TOTAL 773 561 aD Narrporl Cwwr OrM, BuM Ya0 / Nwgwi BneD, C~Nbrnl~ Y20N1 I (711) 720.11Po Land /Plan /Design Group Planning • L'rban Design • Landuape Archimcmre ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST 11. ELECTRICAL METER/SWITCHBOARD (2 X 5) 10 EA 210,000.00 2100,000 IRRIGATION PEDESTAL (1 X 5) 5 EA 1500.00 27.500 PeHG~ Pn en nn nn 1 r n nnn LIGHTING FIXTURES SOFTBALL AND BASEBALL FIELDS (6 % 6) 36 PACKAGE 40 000.00 1440,000 TENNIS COURT (B X 8) 64 EA 500.00 32000 AREA (29 % 5.8) 168 EA 2400.00 (67,200 SIGN (2 X 21 4 EA 350.00 1.400 POLES AND BA'ES BALL fIELD (PLAN) 23 Eq 4000.00 f92,000 TENNIS COURTS (7 X 5) 35 EA 400.00 74,000 ONDUIT (64.803 X S.e) 375 9O0 SUB-TOTAL 22,140000 STREET Ll^uHTIN6 LIGHTING FIXTURES 18 EA 400.00 7 200 POLES AND BASE 18 EA 400.00 (7,200 r SIIB-TOTAL 14400 Y10 Naayon CwMar Olive. BuW 100 / NwpOA BwM, C~OIaM~ 0100D / p1q 740.1 IM Land /Plan /Design Group Planning • Lhban Design Landxape A:chitecmre ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST PARKING LIGHTING _ LIGHTING FIXTURES 22 EA f40000 ~ ~~~f9,800 POLES A.NU BASE 22 EA 400.00 f9 900 SUB-TOTAL 17600 TOTAL 2172,000 - Y.ID NwrRpl Cw4af OIM, BYIM YOO I Nwvporl BMId1, CiAlolnY W1EE0I (7141 T3(/11pE Land /Plan /Design Group Alarming • Urban Design Landscape Arch¢mmre ITEM pUANT17V UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST iii. U(ILii IES WATER 2' WATER SERVICE (2 AT ENTRIES) 2 EA 600.00 S 1 200 6' STEEL PIPE (PUN) 1 400 LF 17.00 223,000 ~BiL ~C~~iCv :i:E ~F•Lnni i.4~ii Li i it.W 17,400 FIRE HYDRANT (1 X 5) 5 EA 1 200.00 11000 METER 2'(AT ENTRIES) 2 EA 175.00 50 SEWER fi'VC7 MAIN (PLAN) 56 lF 24.00 134400 PRECAST MANHOLE 10 EA 1500.00 SIS.000 4A'f9X51 STORM DRAINAGE 4' ACP (PLAN) 3 500 LF 10.00 35 000 6' ACP (PLAN) 700 lF 12.00 SB 400 PRECAST CATCH BASIN (IGX S) 80 EA 100.00 8.600 DRAINAGE SUMP. 1 % S) 5 EA 150.00 750 TRENCH DRAIN AT TENNIS COURT (PLAN) 4 EA 1534.00 6 136 T07AL 26! 43B xro Nwvwrt OwX.r Dn+w auw aoo f Nawppl e..en, e.lganw exec f pu) rto-l lae Land /Plan /Design Gmup Planning • Urban Design • landscape Archtrecturc ITEH OUANTITV UNIT UNtT COST TOTAL CO5T IV. SITE FURNISHINGS AND EQUIPMENT PRECAST TRASH RECEPTACLE (10 X SB? 5R ce eon<n~ I Dr PRECAST BENCH (BX 5.8J 46 EA 150.00 6 900 P CAST PICNIC TABLE (10 X 5.8) 58 EA 310.00 f 17 980 DRINKING FOUNTAIN (PLAN) 4 EA 364.00 27,460 TREE GRATES (12 X 5.W 70 EA 200.00 14000 B-B-0 GRILL UNIT (10 X 5.8) 58 EA 77.00 4,470 TRASH RECEPTACLE (10 % 5.87 58 EA 142.00 G 240 DUAL BASKETBAII GOAL ASSEMBLY (PLAN) 4 EA 1144.00 4 570 VOLLEYBALL POSTS AND NEi 6 SET :370.00 22.220 TENNIS COURT POSTS AND NET 8 SET 525.00 4 200 TENNIS COURT BENCH (PLAN) 1O SET ><368.00 3 680 CMILDREN5 PLAY STRUf7URF (1 X 5.8I 2 SET 25000.00 50000 TOTAL S 129,610 Yd0 Nngan Cwwr OMA 8WN 10R / NaMpM MM,T, pMarM~ YPOOD / (711) TN11Y! Land /Plan /Design Group Planning • Urban Design • landscape Archi[ttturc ITEI'1 QUANTITY UN17 UNIT COST TOTAL COST V. BUILDING RECREATION CENTER 25.000 SF ! 100.00 S9 500 nno RESTROOtt BUILDING 1 EA 50000.00 150000 TOTAL 2 550.000 VI. GRADING 138.000 CUBIC VARO 1.50 207000 TOTAL 207.000 VII. IRRIGATION VIII. LANDSCAPE AND PLANTING IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPING 4 714 AC 60 000.00 282 B40 000 TOTAL 282 840,000 xx NNrpg1 CwMr OrM, 9uMa zoo ~ RwYpgl e..rn, awom. S4M0I plq rm, ivg ~lil !r;: /' ' !.~ a'': ~f' f $-~4°ag.~~ f[r[(e ~T EIS=__ oi"~ ~~ ---- Y=~v '4 Jy'. ABU ~ ~.t` 11}~ `q F j~~ t{ yy Ci , wsl oEEa ~~ ~ ~ \'.\`;. I •ncr I/~~ ~ 1 p s~. a OI A T~~~I -'. MGC' nv..e ~. nEU. t[x1EP=_ 1 rr•.c E,1 f' \tfy~~ 1:6f 1•I 4~~Y^ •qp:p i. cww..i. ~ ~-~-~ r~lf' yi?~~ ~t'`L +^~EE~ncE Uxrtxf~'.om cw~•z-~ ~~\,? ECnE.iOx CExiFU '_ '!. 8 M~f KI ~ .:»000 f[plCGl rr _ c^' ~~ ~."~: «n~rl~N nsp \/ 11{ 1, Iafi Kl~~, ~ `: ~' 1`" _ ~II: ~ ~.,:. N, 't1~'~~;,[r(?';~ ,,:.;I av?i+~"e+u. cans \• ~ O ,,,., K ,\ , ,, ~a10< ,, k~ ~'~ a%rP%.j h(~; S (~''~' ~ ~! { '.•I'1"R°" b'A6'r: . Vt ' r _ ~;~i`, s {~IqIY yy ~ Fus ~~ !•~ a lJ~~r:' Ili _ ~~~QQ!! -.,~...: ~.',;ir: ~,~ ~,..;. _./ )'~ » `fi't i:~` ~t-.: Y^~'i ..l• i i C.4~' _~,I it ,wm r. `,~. EK., .~N x.a.ox ~ rT J. •~;~'--'- - I .. .11=~1~,.:~ilra';<~ - i~' ~~~~ _ yy ^.~ L 11 sw.x ~ . m V ~i ~r.p~ 1 iy; ~, ~ J ~ n _.I I uEwx~n.•a~oa F ~.4« . • I~`'p fr L~,~! n ~, nl ..~~ _ Wwi MxE< e.yaoacti..:.ee. oema0: m°[e1eii(i~e v-<e .. ... ...........-~... asaverfya:~~~ -- : i r ~° : ~.. EWE<EUi[x ~ ;- - : E .. : : I l : ,• ,. : ... . ,. ''•.-:.- : _-...1 - ~~~~ ~• ® 1£ 1i4Y1N4 ® GNhlY 3MSN ~ ~ ~, ~;; 'a~a I ( \ _ ~~ `tee .od• ' --_- -- - --~ ~~--____:. . _. .u row'K ~, a d S eae0 ~~sooi• ~ >f ~ll ~ •, ....e ,. -/` ~\ , ~ ~ ~d l'+•'t i ~ Iii!-. s,j F 4.'~ 1:~~'~: cs`or'c< .~/ _ - 'rsoa ~O,°r~ x' ~ •-. `~,•.~~• j~~e,T ~~!( ~, ~-•W/Q„1.~`s....m^..s~~ncwcc..•.:.-~\~,_~~ 'yf`~ ~~c[ ctu C,t t s r f- ";.~ ~~~ h A. .n ~Ila ~ ~ ~ r~~ fig? fc„ ~ ~ ~i~y 4:n~ ,I d~,• ~.. .. ,~.,.. ,,..sari~~ ,~.r ~ r_ -ya i~ 3 --u ..~~.; ~ ~~~~y . ~' f '~ f \ n ~~r 1 'I s i r ~ i!-_I F`. ~} ~ r rw,.,,,. I il. ._ __ Inc Ir_ * I~,. I f.•. ..,, .. t ,,.,., .. __ 1~1. :: F0.f~ln~.ii ~~w:~..r. _.. .... ,.. .. .. • .. i •_ •i.l ... ... •'. ......~. ......~...... ._ ._ . I ?(: ~N181T Z -.. aar~snls awT ati.~ ~_~ ~G~'I• E oM+O-PIT cU/$, • PN.s MO [M.! pp U~11~IW FIM'tt/RE~ (C~u1V'/PIEWS) -"i s i k <oM.~rv n coe z"r°e~oo i F•.,[ v5 nN~i r ``~ ;. ;., ': ;: . . . u[.o. \„OY L.. AY" ' ~. v :.. ........ .' ~~ "~I ~raR ~ . , bWNl9rxr R~wnwnl ___ : w+na~- v~cF c h~NO~ =x= : ~a owarJ ' - / .. ~ : ; a. ~. W51 C~fKE // .\,.\r 1:51 K~ _ ~~ ~4 \ vrl ~ ~ 1i y n ~l - ~~I,.., ~=-_~ ~x, nN.{ - I I E eE .E CFmFC: _~ - 1.6].Ei _ - Ep[EP`EP ~ -- i'roo s"r emc - K.~ .rm .a°'0~.w.° .. s.r .. s. ~~ l ;, ~, ~, ~'~ are r .. >~ ~ , rr ~ ° ~ . ea°eE~. i. .. c..a- . ( -~ _ . Ir.. ~~ MSr.yrCE °~' D ( ~ ' .iPli'C-s~~~J ~~~ ..n„ r ' ~Er'awo -_s.wnas~ ~ 1 ~f P jj ~ ~' ' ••1 2 ~ ~ ~ '. _ . v rr ~ L h mco ~~~~~~ ~ . ~~ /~ .r,:.~ ° 'ly~~ f rr~~~.r.2-,_ ~ ~~ I 1 ..J.+ ' .r .' 2..ri _ :x• ` I : ~. ~ . . .... ,, r~: . - .... ...jsft .... +T u .::..., _..v ~ r aq: niaACfi.iF .. ... ,.. ~ r.C,• .. .. ... . i i .. 1 1.. . BcHIDIT ~- VN~ ~mpJ mac APPENDIX C IANOSGPE M1IINIEMIINCE COST DATA 'k.; ~~~ ASSOCIATED IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS March 31, 1989 3152^Airuey Aveoue. Suite ,/-2 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Attn: Patrick Cibbone - Re: Etirmda North Water Requirements Gentlemen: We estimte the yesxly laodsespe voter requirements for the above project ac appnzimately tfie folloring: Evapotranapirst ion 42 Inches Rainfall -12 Incbee -if fexence 30 Inches z2~300 Gallons 813,000 Gallons Par Acre Per Year The above ie based on data prepared by the Toro Company. Wa eztrapole[ed 6atrem~ those figures thorn for Loa Angeisa and Pslm Springs. The rainfall nflecia a 30 year average, sad the evapotranspiration sate is based on calculations for turf rhich hoc the 6ighast requireaent. In rnlity. these figures should ba considered very coo•eryative. They apply to slops areas u - cell, cawing the irrigation ryaeea will ba operated vit6 naaoaabla effioimey. Very truly yours, _ ASSOCIATED IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS -- ~cG CLcv~(/ -- BoD Cloud ASIC 2014 SERULVEDA BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 • (213) 477.8525 • FAX (213) 477.2813 ORDINANCE N0. 30-C EXHIBIT "q Hater Service Continued 8[-MONTHLY WATER RAT`S (CONT.) - plus 46t per 100 cubic feet for all eater usage during a bi- nwn~niy p~iiinq pertp0. When service is initiated or discontinued xt the request of the customer within the hi-monthly service periotl and the actual - service period is 30 days or less, the water service charge shall ~~ ~;,~_„"„ ~, ~„~ ,,, _r,.,, .,t"'.y -h'-._ arrnrdina to meter 5i-<e. INTERRUPTIBLE WATER SERVICE _ fhe Agricultural Water Rate is 22.41 oer miners inch hour or 31~ per i00 cubic feet, subject to a 510.00 minimum per calendar month, unless service is requested to be discontinued; also subject to a 55.00 turn-on charge. - 0.11 Agricultural accounts shall he subd ect to an annual Water Development fee cf 525.00 per acre foot of water used per year. - Said fee shalt be billed in July, 1986 and each subsequent year thereafter. _ Parks and Recreational Water Rate is 22.41 per miners inch hour or 31t per 100 cubic feet. TEMPORARY MATER SERVICE Temporary Water Service Rate .. .............50.58/100 Cu.Ft',; or 50.78/1,000 Gallons. Fire Hydrant Connection Permit Fee.........55.00 Meter Jumpers ..............................58.00 each Trench Backfill Compaction: 1. Water, Oa• E1^riric Telephone, or Televisf on...S0.06 per lineal foot of trench 2. Sewer or Storm Orain......,,f0.14 pertineal foot of trench• -3- ORDINANCE ND. 30-L EIIH INIT "R" Hater Service Continued MISCELLANEOUS CNAR6ES a. 'urn-on Lharae ......................... .... 4 5.00 b. ~+eld Collection Char ae ............... .... b 7. ;C c. Reconnection Charge ................... .... S15.t70 - d, "qf ter-Hours" Reconnection Charge ..... .... 522.50 - e. Extension Charge ...................... .... 4 2.50 (Limit: 1 oer customer aer billing aeri adl f. Returned Check Lharae ................ . .... 4 5.00 ................. .... 7.50 g. Broken/Missing Lack Lharae ............ .... 515.00 h. Broken Angle Meter Stop Charge ........ .... E30.00 i. Broken /Mtssinq Meter Register Charge .. .... f35.C0 3. Meter Testing Charge (at Owner's Reques t): 5/O" - 1" Meter ............. ... E15 .00 - 1-1/2" - 2" Meter ............. ... 530.00 3" 5 Larger Meter ............. ... As punted BT-MONTHLY HATER RATES BI- MONTHLY METER SIZE SERVICE CNIIRDE 5/8" x 3/a" ................... S 5T9b 3/a" ................... S X30 1" ................... E 4$c00 1-1; 2" .... ....... ....:,,: 2" ................... S f 130 2 50 L y ~ a" ................... S 8~i'S0 6" ................... S 168.00 8" .. ................. S 2ST~'61 _Z_ urc ~~ CALSErTSE March 29, 1989 _. rir. Pau ick GioLuue The Peninsula Group _. 3151 Airway Ave, /J2 Coate Meae, CA 92626 Dear Petrick: _ Thank you for pour interest in the CA LS ENSE system. Regarding pour cost model for the vas of our system the following infarmetion may he helpful: -- Centroller maintenance- Thia should ha approximately the same es any other controller since the pr imery maintenance problems vill - be keyboards, connectors end batteries rhich ere common to ell modern controllers. Sensor maintenance- We have designed the sensors to lest for ten years, Our guarantee is for five yeere prorated. The coat of installing a aenaor is approximately 550.00. The moat conservative approach would be to assume a $200.00 coat every five years per aenaor. (There is one aenaor for every four valves) Using our design numbers, i[ would be 5200,00 for every ten years, Centralized controller-Thia rill be a standard IBM pc type - computer with very low maintenance costa. Software-Thia will be Bold with the original hardware. I hope this satisfies your requirements. A price llet ie also included Sincerely, ~~~~ p15Cale EelNgpl, Snk J, GInWE,tA 920p9 (Bt9~18B~0515 ~e o~, ~~~ ,.a.,R.~~..,,,a ~~~, ~~ ~~~~~`~ .K..~. r ~ .~,a.,~.. . ~ ~„M. o~ : ~m,..~,~.., ,...~ .. ~„~.~~ • ~ ....,e ..............~ EXHIBIT 15 QPEN~~PA~E PA€ii~5 AiV~ TRAILS PLAN STAT[STICAL SUMMARY (Rev. March 16, 1989) RANCHO CUCA,:tONCA PARK ACR AGE 57'ANDARDS Formula: (DU) (Pcrsons/DU) (Acres/1000) = Acra of Parks DU for Etiwanda Nonh specific plan area = 5231 Persons/DU = 3.25 Acres required - 3 Lo:al park standard = 5 (5231) (3.25) (3) :1000 - SI.00 acres required (5231) (3.25) (S) : 1000 - 85.00 acres standard - ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC Pi.AN PARK CREDIT DESCRIPTION DEVELOPE-D ACRES UNDEVELOFED ACRLS Unrnamhered Ertcumbered• Natural Preurve O,S. D-1 5.0 4.7 _T" <p fp D-3 5.0 -0- D-6 - - D-7 7.2 8.6 D-8 iS.O 15.7 30.0 D•9 11.8 -0• Tail head 2.0 -0- Day Canyon 675.8 SUBTOTAL 51.0 34.0 705.8 ± 1,856.2 Note: Grand foul of the shove areas is 2,726 acres. Trails: over 35 miles total with park credit o(approximaeely l2 acres not included in ahnvr See summary and additional notes on following page. DARK/0 5 ACREAGE NE8 876 UNENCUMBERED ENCUM BERED NATURAL OPEN SPACE CURRENT PREVIOUS CURRENT PREVIOUS CURRENT PREVIOUS D- 1 5 00 5.00 9 70 9.70 D-2 500 5.00 500 5.00 D-3 500 12.00 - D-6 3.00 - 9.50 D-7 7 20 ' 39.00 8 60 36.30 D-8 15.00 15.00 15.70 15.70 3.000 30.00 1=-^ .j. . 80 I i i.60 I 1 - 1 - ~ ~7 (HAIL HtAD' 200 6 2.00 DAY CANYON 675,80 675.80 TOTAL 5700 92.b0 3900 71.20 705.SG 70580 I __