Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02 REV HOUSING ELEM 11-04-02
AGENDA REPORT NO' 2 11 ~04-02 MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2002 TO: FROM: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 615-10 R=P SUMMARY ~ California State Law Section 65588 requires that cities and counties update th.,elir Housing Element at least every five (5) years. The Housing Element sets forth the City $ five-year strategy to preserve a, nd enhance the community's character, expand housing opportunities for the City s various economic segments, and provide the policy guidance for local decision making related to housing. On February 4, 2002, the City Council adopted the Housing Element Update. The State Department of Ho~sing and Community Development (HCD) reviewed the Update and recommended revi~sions. All of the HCD revisions have been incorporated into the proposed revisedHousing Element Update recommended for adoption. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council: ! . Adopt Resolution No. 02-73 finding that the environmental determinati~)n for the Housing Element Update approved on February 4, 2002, is adequate for the revision to the Housing Element Update. Adopt Resolution No. 02-74 approving General Plan Amendment 02-001 the adopted Tustin Housing Element. FISCAL IMPACT , revising The cost for the preparation of the Housing Element Update Was budgeted in 1~99 and a portion of the cost related to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is reimbursable by the State. BACKGROUND The availability of housing and a suitable living environment for every family has been of increasing concern to all levels of government. In California, this concern is addiessed by the California Government Code requirement that each City adopt a Housing Element as a City Council Report November 4, 2002 Revisions to Housing Element Update Page 2 mandatory part of its General Plan. State Planning Law requires that cities a update their Housing Elements at least every five (5) years. Tustin is part of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) re city within this region was required to update the Housing Element by Decemb~ to address housing needs for the 1998-2005 planning period. In Oran currently only two-third of cities have received compliance certification fron: Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). In anticipating of the update by the due date, the City progressed as follows: August 5, 1999 Sent Request for Proposals (RFP) to fifteen (15) cons to prepare an update for the City of Tustin. October 4, 1999 The City Council authorized the Planning Center to I: City's Housing Element Update. Between October 1999 and September 2000 SCAG completed Regional Housing Needs Assessmt process and assigned RHNA numbers to cities jurisdiction. SCAG adopted Final RHNA on November September 29, 2000 The City completed its first draft Housing Element Upc State Department of Housing and Community DE (HCD) review. November 16, 2000 HCD provided a comment letter and requested revision to the Housing Element Update. January through December 2001 The City worked with the Planning Center to add comments and corrections. The Planning Center staff changes which delayed the completion of the Dra Element. City staff took over the'project and com revised Housing Element in-house. January 3, 2002 The City sent the revised Housing Element incorporat requested revisions to HCD. January 14, 2002 January 28, 2002 The Planning Commission conducted a workshop to the public with the purpose and intent of the Housin~ Update. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on th ~d counties gion. Each ~r 31, 2000, re County, the State :ompletion ulting firms ,repare the nt (RHNA) within its 2, 2000. ate for the .velopment s be made 'ess HCD :perienced ft Housing ~leted the ~ng HCD's familiarize Element Housing City Council Report November 4, 2002 Revisions to Housing Element Update Page 3 Element Update and the environmental docu recommended that the City Council certify the en' document and adopt the Housing Element Update as I: February 4, 2002 The City Council adopted the environmental docume~ Housing Element Update. February 11,2002 The City sent HCD a copy of the adopted Housing Eler March 7, 2002 HCD provided the City with review comments and corn Between March 7, 2002 and June 2002 The City worked diligently with HCD through infor conversations and submissions via fax to add~ comments and corrections. June 14, 2002 The City sent the revised Housing Element for HCD rev July 3, 2002 HCD approved the revised draft Housing Elemer Council adoption of the amended Housing Element. July 22, 2002 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on th, to the Housing Element Update and the environmental and recommended that the City Council find environmental document adopted on February 4, adequate and adopt the Housing Element Update, as a~ August 5, 2002 The City Council scheduled the adoption of the revisi Housing Element Update. However, the City Council this item to November 4, 2002, to ensure that the adol: Housing Element Update is consistent with the Agreement with the Santa Ana School District. As evidenced, the City has worked diligently and collaborated with HCD to Housing Element that is effective, achievable, consistent with Housing addresses local and regional needs. ment and zironmental ,roposed. ~ts and the ~ent. ~ctions. T~al phone · ess HCD iew. ~t pending ~ revisions document that the 2002 is nended. ons to the continued ,tion of the .~ettlement )roduce a _aw, and City Council Report November 4, 2002 Revisions to Housing Element Update Page 4 DISCUSSION Purpose of the Housing Element The purpose of the Housing Element is to assure that the City: 1) rec responsibility in contributing to the attainment of State housing goals; 2) pr~ implements the Housing Element toward attainment of State housing goals; 3) efforts that are required to contribute to the attainment of State Housing go ensures that the City cooperates with other local governments to address regio~ needs. In general, the Housing Element sets forth the City's five-year strategy to: · Preserve and enhance the community's character; · Expand housing opportunities for the City's various economic segments · Provide the policy guidance for local decision making related to housing. Housing Element Content The City's Housing Element addresses the following topical areas: 1. Summary of Issues, Needs, Constraints, and Opportunities 2. Review of Previous Policies, Programs, and Objectives 3. Identification of Goals and Policies 4. Implementation Programs The Summary of Issues, Needs, Constraints, and Opportunities section s~ Tustin's current and projected housing needs to form the basis for establishir priorities and quantified objectives in the Housing Element. ognizes its .~pares and determines als; and 4) ~al housing and immarizes g program The Review of Previous Policies, Programs, and Objectives section ,rovides a summary of the City's previous policies, programs, and objectives. This allo~vs the City to assess its past performance and provide evaluation of efforts in meeting th~ identified goals and objectives. In general the City was successful in accomplishing ti' ~ majority of the objectives established in the past planning period. The City was able t~ preserve units at risk of conversion to market rate. In addition all units removed were replaced in a manner consistent with the State Redevelopment Law (Attachment 4 - Appendix B of the Implementation Plan for FY 2000-2005). The Identification of Goals and Policies section contains the goals and policiE:s the City intends to implement related to a number of housing-related issues. City Council Report November 4, 2002 Revisions to Housing Element Update Page 5 The Implementation Program section provides specific actions the City undertake to achieve the established goals and policies. This sectio~ quantified objectives, available financial resources and affordable housing and provides a list of specific programs the City intends to pursue. The Housing Element Technical Memorandum is an accompanying doc provides background information and supporting documentation to th Element. The City used the most recent available data to complete th~ Memorandum and the Housing Element Update. The data includes but are to: Regional Housing Needs Assessment dated 1999, Census 1990, Ce (available data only), Center Demographic Research 2001, California Der Finance data, Second Five Year Implementation Plan (FY 2000-2005), Com Housing Affordability Strategy for FY 2000-2010, HCD Website 2001, and 2000. Other sources are as noted in the Housing Element and Housir Technical Memorandum. HCD Required Revisions After Council adoption of the Housing Element on February 4, 2002, HCD comments and corrections. In general, HCD requested the City to provi detailed land inventory analysis that demonstrates the combination of s MCAS-Tustin and other vacant and underutilized sites that can accommod~ remaining regional housing need for all income groups. HCD also required clarify and strengthen its programmatic commitment to implementing development strategies in Old Town Tustin. In addition, HCD requested th describe the approximate timing of the establishment of the M( redevelopment project area to ensure that the land would be available to acc the housing needs during the planning period. The City provided HCD with corrections on June 14, 2002, and on July 3, approved the draft revisions pending City Council adoption of the amendt Element Update. On July 22, 2002, the Planning Commission considered the environmental revisions to the Housing Element Update and recommended that the City Cour the environmental document adopted on February 4, 2002 is adequate and Housing Element Update as amended. On August 5, 2002 the City Council continued this item to August 19, 2002, Se 2002, September 16, October 21, 2002, and to November 4, 2002, to ensu adoption of the Housing Element is consistent with the Settlement Agreeme Santa Ana School District. intends to identifies resources, Jment that ~ Housing Technical not limited ~sus 2000 ~artment of ~rehensive :~eal Facts g Element ~ad further de a more tes at the ~te Tustin's the City to mixed-use at the City .~AS-Tustin ommodate .~002, HCD .d Housing 'eview and cil find that adopt the ptember 3, re that the nt with the City Council Report November 4, 2002 Revisions to Housing Element Update Page 6 Environmental Review Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sec the City of Tustin reviewed the revisions to the Housing Element U determined that all effects associated with the revisions to the Housing Elem were adequately evaluated when the City considered adoption of the Housir Update on February 4, 2002, that no new effects would occur, that no increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would oc( new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigatior~ previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would s~ reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. T to the Update makes clarifying and technical changes that do not affec environmental determination. Public Comment At the City Council Meeting of August 19, 2002, Mr. Richard Spix, leg. representing Mr. Juan Garcia, submitted a comment letter to the City Cour has provided a response to this letter and attached herewith as Attachment 5. Just~h~l~/iill~om Associate Planner Iion 15152, 3date and .~nt Update )g Element substantial :ur, that no measu res ire no new Jbstantially 3e revision the prior counsel ~cil. Staff Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Dire[ctor Attachments: 1. City Council Resolution No. 02-73 2. City Council Resolution No. 02-74 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3838 and 3839 4. Replacement Housing Calculation (Appendix B of the Cit' Implementation Plan for FY 2000-05) 5. Mr. Spix's letter dated August 5, 2002, and the City's RE Mr. Spix's Comment Letter S:\Cdd\CCREPORT~Revisions to Housing Element CCM.doc ! of Tustin sponse to Attachment 1 City Council Resolution No. 02-73 RESOLUTION NO. 02-73 A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL FINDING THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 4, 2002, IS ADEQUATE FOR THE REVISION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby find and resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: Ao Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) State Section 15152, the City of Tustin staff completed an Initial determined that all effects associated with the implementation of t Housing Element Update were evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR Tustin, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial incr~ severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, ti mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be fe that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applic project that would substantially reduce effects of the project the been considered and previously adopted On February 4, 2002, prior to adopting the Housing Element Upd~ Council reviewed and considered the Program EIS/EIR for MCAS Initial Study for the Housing Element Update, the City Council minul comments and responses thereto. The City Council found and certi Program EIS/EIR for MCAS, Tustin was adequate under CE environmental document for the Housing Element Update and wa~ complete, and prepared in compliance with the requirements of CE State Guidelines. The assessment that the Program EIS/EIR for adequate under CEQA for the Housing Element Update reflecte( independent judgment and analysis. B! On February 4, 2002, the City Council adopted the Housing Elem~ The State Department of Housing and Community Develo reviewed the Housing Element Update and recommended revi,, revision to the Housing Element Update makes clarifying an~ changes that do not affect the prior environmental determination. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15152, the City of Tustin has reviewed the revisions to ti Element Update and has determined that all effects associate revisions to the Housing Element Update were adequately evaK the City considered adoption of the Housing Element Update, on Guidelines Study and he Revised for MCAS, .~ase in the ~at no new mitigation asible, and able to the ~t have not ,te, the City -Tustin, the :es, and the Iied that the QA as an adequate, :lA and the MCAS was the City's nt Update. )ment has ;~ons. The technical Guidelines ~e Housing d with the ~ated when :ebruary 4, Resolution No. 02-73 Page 2 II. 2002, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial incr{ severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, ti mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be fe that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applic project that would substantially reduce effects of the project th~ been considered and adopted. The revision to the Update make and technical changes that do not affect the prior en~ determination. D. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 22, recommended that the City Council find that the environmental deten the Housing Element Update approved on February 4, 2002, is ade¢ revision to the housing element update. The City Council hereby finds that the environmental determina' Housing Element Update approved on February 4, 2002, is adeqL revision to the Housing Element Update. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Cou~ the 4th day of November, 2002. JEFFERY M. THOMAS Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk ;ase in the ~at no new mitigation asible, and able to the ~t have not s clarifying fironmental 2002, and ~ination for uate for the ion for the ~ate for the )cil held on Resolution No. 02-73 Page 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 02-73 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the Ci' California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the Cit the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 02-73 regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin held on the 4th day of November, 2002. COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:" PAMELA STOKER City Clerk ~y of Tustin, Council of as duly and :ity Council, Attachment 2 City Council Resolution No. 02-74 RESOLUTION NO. 02-74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 02-001, REVISING THE ADOPTED TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT. The City Council does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A, That California Government Code Section 65588 requires each City review as frequently as appropriate and revise its Housing Element as appropriate. B, That the City prepared a Housing Element Update pursuant to Government Code Section 65588 and incorporated comments received on the draft from the State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"). Co That the City utilized the most recent available data in completing the Housing Element Update and that the City has worked diligently with HCD to produce an effective Housing Element. D, That in anticipating completion of the Housing Element Update, the City progressed as follows: August 5, 1999 Sent Request for Proposals (RFP) to fifteen (15) consulting firms to prepare an update for the City of Tustin. October 4, 1999 The City Council authorized the Planning Center to prepare the City's Housing Element Update. Between October 1999 and September 2000 SCAG completed Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process and assigned RHNA numbers to cities within its jurisdiction. SCAG adopted Final RHNA on November 2, 2000. September 29, 2000 The City completed its first draft Housing Element Update for the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) review. November 16, 2000 HCD provided a comment letter and requested revisions be made to the Housing Element Update. January through December 2001 The City worked with the Planning Center to address HCD comments and corrections. The Planning Center Resolution No. 02-74 Page 2 January 3, 2002 January 14,2002 January 28,2002 February 4, 2002 February 11,2002 March 7,2002 Between March 7, 2002 and June 2002 June 14,2002 July 3, 2002 July 22,2002 experienced staff changes which delayed the completion of the Draft Housing Element. City staff took over the project and completed the revised Housing Element in-house. The City sent the revised Housing Element incorporating HCD's requested revisions to HCD. The Planning Commission conducted a workshop to familiarize the public with the purpose and intent of the Housing Element Update. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Housing Element Update and the environmental document and recommended that the City Council certify the environmental document and adopt the Housing Element Update as proposed. The City Council adopted the environmental documents and the Housing Element Update. The City sent HCD a copy of the adopted Housing Element. HCD provided the City with review comments and corrections. The City worked diligently with HCD through informal phone conversations and submissions via fax to address HCD comments and corrections. The City sent the revised Housing Element for HCD review. HCD approved the revised draft Housing Element pending Council adoption of the amended Housing Element. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revisions to the Housing Element Update and the environmental document and recommended that the City Council find that the environmental document adopted on February 4, 2002 is adequate and adopt the Housing Element Update as amended. Resolution No. 02-74 Page 3 E, F. G, H, Jo K, Lo August 5, 2002 The City Council scheduled the adoption of the revisions to the Housing Element Update. However, the City Council continued this item to November 4, 2002, to ensure that the adoption of the Housing Element Update is consistent with the Settlement Agreement with the Santa Ana School District. That a public workshop was held on January 14, 2002, to familiarize the general public with the purpose and intent of the Housing Element Update. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on January 28, 2002, by the Planning Commission to consider and provide further opportunity for the general public to comment on the proposed Housing Element Update. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on February 4, 2002, by the City Council to consider and provide further opportunity for the general public to comment on the proposed Housing Element Update. That the City Council considered environmental documentation and adopted the Housing Element Update on February 4, 2002. That HCD reviewed the adopted Housing Element Update and recommended revisions; the City prepared revisions, and the revisions were approved by HCD. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on July 22, 2002, by the Planning Commission to consider and provide further opportunity for the general public to comment on the proposed revisions to the Housing Element Update. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on November 4, 2002, by the City Council to consider and provide further opportunity for the general public to comment on the proposed revisions to the Housing Element Update. That pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15152, the City of Tustin has completed environmental review and determined that all effects associated with the revisions to the Housing Element Update were adequately evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin as determined by the City Council on February 4, 2002, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that Resolution No. 02-74 Page 4 have not been considered and adopted. The revision to the Update makes clarifying and technical changes that do not affect the prior environmental determination. II. The City Council hereby approves an amendment to the General Plan Amendment 02-001, revising the Tustin Housing Element Update as identified in "Exhibit A" attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 4th day of November, 2002. JEFFERY M. THOMAS Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 02-74 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 02-74 was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 4th day of November, 2002. COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk Exhibit A of City Council Resolution No. 02-74 Housing Element TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN NOVEMBER 2002 This page intentionally left blank. Section TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT Purpose Of The Housing Element Scope And Content Of Element Consistency With State Planning Law General Plan Consistency Citizen Participation SUMMARY OF ISSUES, NEEDS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Summary Of Housing Needs Preservation Of Units At Risk Of Conversion Summary Of Housing Issues Housing Constraints Housing Opportunities HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES Housing Supply/Housing Opportunities Maintenance And Conservation ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM FIVE YEAR QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES 2000-2005 IDENTIFICATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES HOUSING PROGRAMS 7 2O 25 29 37 48 48 52 53 53 55 55 60 78 APPENDICES A - REVIEW OF PAST PERFORMANCE B - AFFORDABILITY GAP ANALYSIS C - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAILING LIST D - REFERENCES CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT November 2002 TABLE H- TABLE H- TABLE H- TABLE H- TABLE H- TABLE H- TABLE H- TABLE H- TABLE H- TABLE H- TABLE H- TABLE H- TABLE H- LIST OF TABLES PAGE TABLE H- 1' STATE HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS 2: POPULATION PROJECTIONS 3: EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS 4: MAJOR TUSTIN EMPLOYERS 5: CITY OT TUSTIN JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE 6: AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT SUMMARY 7: RENTAL MARKET SUMMARY 8: EMERGENCY SHELTER/TRANSISTIONAL HOUSING FACILITIES 9: ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY 10: SUMMARY OF EXISTING HOUSING NEEDS 11: 12: 13: 14: TABLE H- 15: TABLE H- 16: TABLE H- 17: TABLE H- 18: TABLE H- 19: TABLE H- 20: TABLE H- 21: TABLE H- 22: ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT AT MCAS-TUSTIN LAND INVENTORY AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL PROGRESS TOWARD RHNA CONSTRUCTION NEEDS VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED WITH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL VACANT AND UNDERUTILZED LAND HOUSING RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES BY ELEMENT 3 8 9 10 11 14 15 19 22 25 34 38 39 42 46 54 NEW CONSTRUCTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES SUMMARY 1998-2005 57 REHABILITATION, PRESERVATION, AND OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES SUMMARY 1998-2005 59 SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES 2000-2005 60 HOUSING PROGRAM ILLUSTRATIVE FUNDING RESOURCES 2000-2005 61 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES 62 HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS 2000-2005 79 CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT ii November 2002 INTRODUCTION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT The availability of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every family has been of increasing concern to all levels of government. In California, this 'concern is addressed by the California Government Code requirement that each City adopt a Housing Element as a mandatory part of its General Plan. State Planning Law mandates that jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region adopt revisions to their Housing Elements by December 31, 2000. As a consequence of this due date, a series of time frames for various aspects of the Housing Element preparation are established. There are three relevant time periods: 1989-2000: The previous planning period began on July 1,1989, and is currently scheduled to end on December 31, 2000. 1998-June 30, 2005: a planning period for assessing short-term housing construction needs. ° 2000-2005: an implementation period for housing programs. The planning period for the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by SCAG is from January 1998 to June 2005, a seven and one-half year period. The implementation period covered by this element is July 2000 through June 2005. By 2003, the City, along with other jurisdictions in the SCAG region, again will begin preparation for a revision of the housing element to cover the period from 2005-2010. PURPOSE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT The Land Use Element is concerned with housing in a spatial context while the Housing Element identifies housing programs aimed at meeting the identified housing needs of the City's population. The Tustin Housing Element includes the identification of strategies and programs that focus on: 1) housing affordability, 2) rehabilitating substandard housing, '3) meeting the existing demand for new housing, and 4) conserving the existing affordable housing stock. The Tustin Housing Technical Memorandum provides background information and supporting documentation. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT November 2002 SCOPE AND CONTENT OF ELEMENT The State Legislature recognizes the role of the local general plan, and particularly the Housing Element, in implementing Statewide housing goals. Furthermore, the Legislature stresses continuing efforts toward providing affordable housing for all income groups. The Legislature's major concerns with regard to the preparation of Housing Elements are: Recognition by local governments of their responsibility in contributing to the attainment of State housing goals; Preparation and implementation of housing elements which coordinate with State and Federal efforts in achieving State housing goals; Participation by local jurisdictions in determining efforts required to attain State housing goals; and Cooperation between local governments to address regional housing needs. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sets forth specific requirements regarding the scope and content of housing elements. CONSISTENCY WITH STATE PLANNING LAW The preparation of the City's Housing Element is guided by and must conform to Section 65580 et al of the California Government Code. In the introduction of these Government Code sections, the Legislature establishes a policy that the availability of housing in a suitable environment is of vital statewide importance, and a priority of the highest order. It further states that local governments are to address the housing needs of all economic segments, while considering the economic, environmental and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the General Plan. The following table cites the required components for the Housing Element and cites the document and page references for the required components. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 2 November 2002 Table H- 1 STATE HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS Required Housing Element Component A. Housing Needs Assessment 1. Analysis of population trends in Tustin in relation to regional trends 10. Analysis of employment trends in Tustin in relation to regional trends Projection and quantification of Tustin's existing and projected housing needs for all income groups Analysis and documentation of Tustin's housing characteristics including the following: a) level of housing cost compared to ability to pay; b) overcrowding; c) housing stock condition. An inventory of land suitable for residential development including vacant sites and having redevelopment potential and an analysis of the relationship of zoning, public facihties and services to these sites Analysis of existing and potential governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels Analysis of existing and potential non-governmental and market constraints upon maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels Analysis of special housing need: disabled, elderly, large families, female-headed households, farmworkers Analysis concerning the needs of homeless individuals and families in Tustin Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development B. Goals and Policies Identification of Tustin's goals, quantified objectives and policies relative to maintenance, improvement, and development of housing Page HTM9& HE8 HTM 13 & HE8 HE 25 HTM 22 HTM 17 HTM 30 HE 42 HTM 53 & HE 31 HTM 65 & HE 29 HE16 HE17 HTM 70 HE 51 CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT November 2002 Table H- 1 STATE HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS Required Housing Element Component C. Implementation Program An implementation program should do the following: 1. Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate action with required public services and facilities for a variety of housing types for all income levels Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low-and moderate-income households Identify and, when appropriate and possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing Conserve and improve the condition of the existing and affordable housing stock 5. Promote housing opportunities for all persons , Identify programs to address the potential conversion of assisted housing developments to market rate units Source: California Government Code, §65583, et al. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Page HE 58-98 HE 58-98 HE 58-98 HE 58-98 HE 58-98 HE 58-98 While a city must consider housing needs for all economic segments, it must also maintain internal consistency among other elements of the General Plan as required by state law. Neither the Housing Element nor any other element may supersede any other required Tustin General Plan elements. The Housing Element relates to other elements in a variety of ways. The Land Use Element directly relates to the Housing Element by designating areas of the City in which a variety of residential types and densities exist. The Housing Element's relationship to the Conservation, Open Space, and Recreation Element is conditioned by the need to serve a growing population's recreational needs in the areas of the City with the highest density. Also, housing needs for low cost land must be balanced by the need to conserve natural resources. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 4 November 2002 The Circulation Element attempts to provide an efficient and well- balanced circulation system. This system must be designed to accommodate allowed land uses, including residential uses, and the intensity of allowable uses should not exceed the ultimate capacity to accommodate them. The Safety Element relates to the Housing Element by designating areas that are unsafe for development such as Alquist-Priolo Zones, floodplains, etcetera. Similar to the Safety Element, the Noise Element relates to the Housing Element by addressing a health related issue area. Techniques for reducing noise often involve buffers between land uses. The Growth Management Element overlaps the issues raised in the Housing Element in its efforts to ensure that the planning, management, and implementation of traffic improvements and public facilities are adequate to meet the current and projected needs of Orange County. The Housing Element has been reviewed for consistency with the City's other General Plan elements and policy directions. As parts of the General Plan are amended in the future, this housing element will be reviewed to ensure that consistency is maintained. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The California Government Code requires that local governments make diligent efforts to solicit public participation from all segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element. Public participation in the Housing Element Update process occurred through the following methods: A public workshop was conducted on January 14, 2002 to present the draft Housing Element and provide an opportunity for interested persons to ask questions and offer suggestions. Notice of this workshop was published in the Tustin News and was also mailed to the City's list of local housing interest groups. A copy of the mailing list is included as Appendix C. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT November 2002 Specific implementation programs included in the Housing Element Update were also discussed at various public hearings over the last 18 months in anticipation of the Housing Element Update. These hearings include the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program public hearing held on May 1, 2000, adoption of the City's of Tustin's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy for fiscal years 2000-2001 to 2009-2010 public hearing held on February 7, 2000, and adoption of the Second Five-year Implementation Plan for the Town Center and South Central Redevelopment Project areas for fiscal years 2000-01 to 2004- 2005 public hearing held on March 6, 2000. Public hearings were held on January 28, 2002, by the Planning Commission and on February 4, 2002, by the City Council to provide additional opportunities for public review and comment on the Housing Element Update and supporting documents. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 6 November 2002 SUMMARY OF ISSUES, NEEDS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES This section of the Housing Element summarizes Tustin's current and projected housing needs to form the basis for establishing program priorities and quantified objectives in the Housing Element. This section also: · Estimates the number of households that meet Federal or State criteria for special consideration when discussing specialized needs; · Evaluates assisted units at risk of conversion; · Describes constraints that may discourage the construction of new housing; and · Examines housing opportunity sites. SUMMARY OF HOUSING NEEDS A number of factors will influence the degree of demand or "need" for housing in Tustin. The major "needs" categories considered in this Element include: Housing needs resulting from increased population and employment growth in the City and the surrounding region; ° Housing needs resulting from household overcrowding; Housing needs resulting from the deterioration or demolition of existing units; Housing needs that result when households are paying more than they can afford for housing; Housing needs resulting from the presence of "special needs groups" such as the elderly, large families, female-headed households, households with a disabled person, and the homeless; and Housing needs resulting from conversion of the assisted housing stock to market rate. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT November 2002 Population Growth Between 1990 and 1999, the City's population grew from 50,689 to 67,153, an increase of 32.5 percent. Tustin's growth rate (32.5 percent) between 1990 and 1999 was faster than the countywide growth rate of 15.5 percent. The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates a total population of 67,153 persons in the City as of January 1999L The City's population is expected to reach 72,735 by the year 2005. A significant amount of Tustin's population growth can be attributed to annexations that have occurred since 1980. The remainder can be attributed to new residential construction in East Tustin, a changeover in population from smaller to larger families, rebuilding of existing developed areas, and infill development. Population projections are shown in Table H-2. According to Orange County Projections (OCP) 96 Modified data, the population in the City of Tustin is expected to increase by approximately 12 percent to 74,964 persons by the year 2020. Table H- 2 Population Projection 2000 2005 2010 2020 Percent Change (2000-2020) Tustin 66,740 72,735 73,791 74,964 12% Source: OCP-96 Modified, Prepared by Center for Demographic Research. Employment AccOrding to 1990 Census data, the City of Tustin had 31,394 residents in the labor force, of which 27,274 were in the labor market. Of these, 81% were private wages and salary workers.2 The largest occupational category was administrative support occupations, in which a total of 5,533 were employed. The second Housing Element Technical Memorandum Table HTM-1 Housing Element Technical Memorandum Table HTM-4. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 8 November 2002 largest was the executive, administrative, and managerial occupations. The 1990 Census also showed that 2,714 persons were in the Armed Forces. Those involved with farming, forestry and fishing occupations accounted for only 0.9%. In terms of industry, the retail and manufacturing sectors employed the largest number of persons with 4,441 (16.3%) and 4,008 (14.7%) employees, respectively.3 Table H-3 provides employment projections between the years 2000 and 2020. According to OCP-96 Modified data, employment in the City of Tustin is expected to increase by approximately 31 percent by the year 2020. Table H- 3 EmPloyment Projection 2000 2005 2010 2020 Percent Change (2000-2020) Tustin 42,097 45,988 49,545 55,183 31% Source: OCP-96 Modified, Prepared by Center for Demographic Research. Table H-4 provides a list of the largest private sector employers in Tustin in 1999. The list includes a variety of industries, including manufacturing, health care, retail, and technology sectors. 3 Housing Element Technical Memorandum Table HTM-5. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT November 2002 Table H- 4 MA~OR TUSTIN EMPLOYERS Company/Address/Telephone No. Emp. Steelcase Inc - (714) 259-8000 1123 Warner Avenue - Tustin 92780 Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (714) 259-1220 1100 Valencia Avenue - Tustin, 92780 Sun Health Care Group - (714) 5~ ~3 2742 Dow Avenue - Tustin 92780 Texas Instruments - (714) 573-6000 14351 Myford Road - Tustin 92780 Silicon Systems - (714) 731-7110 14351 Myford Road - Tustin 92780 MacPherson Enterprises - (714) 832-3300 2 Auto Center Drive - Tustin 92782 Pargain Technology - (714) 832-9922 14402 Franklin Avenue - Tustin 92780 Cherokee International - (714) 598-2000 2841 Dow - Tustin 92780 Toshiba America Medical Systems - (714) 730-5000 2441 Michelle - Tustin 92780 Crazy Shirts - (714) 832-5883 2911 Dow Avenue - Tustin 92780 Printrak International - (714) 238-2000 1250 N. Tustin - Tustin 92780 Revere Transducers - (714) 731-1234 14192 Franklin Avenue - Tustin 92780 Tustin Hospital - (714) 669-5883 14662 Newport Boulevard - Tustin 92780 Pacific Bell Mobile Services - (714) 734-7300 2521 Michelle Drive 2nd Floor - Tustin 92780 Fireman's Fund Insurance - (714) 669-0911 17542 17m Street - Tustin 92780 Safeguard Business Systems - (714) 730-8112 14661 Franklin - Tustin 92780 Dynachem electronic Materials - (714) 730-4200 2631 Michelle Drive - Tustin 92780 Vitalcom Inc. - (714) 546-0147 15222 Del Amo Avenue - Tustin 92780 Smartflex Systems Inc. - (714) 838-8737 14312 Franklin Avenue - Tustin 92780 Duncan electronics - (714) 258-7500 15771 Red Hill - Tustin 92780 Quality Systems - (714) 731-7171 17822 E. 17m Street, Suite 210 - Tustin 92780 Source: Tustin Chamber of Commerce, 1999 1,100 1,038 985 560 550 Product/Service Office Furniture Manufacturer Healthcare Semiconductors Integrated Circuits 540 Auto Dealerships 500 Telecommunications 330 Power Supplies 30O 245 Distributor, Medical Equipment Apparel 204 Fingerprinting Systems 200 Manufacturer 200 200 190 175 135 130 127 Hospital Telecommunications Insurance Accounting Services Chemicals Medical computer Networks Electronic Assemblies 125 Sensors Manufacturing 113 Medical/Dental Coml~uter S~'stems CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 10 November 2002 Jobs-Housing Balance The "jobs-housing balance" test is a general measure of a community's employment opportunities with respect to its residents' needs. A balanced community would reach equilibrium between employment and housing opportunities so the majority of the residents could also work within the community. The jobs-housing balance for the City of Tustin is shown in Table H-5. According to the California Department of Finance and SCAG, there were 43,873 employment opportunities and 24,861 households in Tustin resulting in a jobs/housing ratio of 1.76. In comparison, jobs/housing ratio for Orange County was 1.59. The jobs/housing ratio for the entire six- county SCAG region was 1.35 in 2000. This analysis demonstrates that Tustin is a job-rich community when compared to the county and regional averages. Table H- 5 CITY OF TUSTIN JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE 2000 Tustin Oran~;e Count~ SCAG Region Employment 43,873 1,536,603 7,708,504 Housing Units 24,861 966,086 5,726,547 Jobs/Housing Ratio 1.76 1.59 1.35 Sources: California Department of Finance; SCAG. Overcrowding Along with the City's population growth, there has been an increase in unit overcrowding, as households "double up" to save on housing costs. Overcrowding is often reflective of one of three conditions: 1) a family or household is living in too small a dwelling; 2) a family chooses to house extended family members (i.e., grandparents or grown children and their families living with parents, termed doubling); or 3) a family is renting living space to non-family members. State and Federal Housing Law defines overcrowded housing units as those in which the ratio of persons-to-rooms exceeds 1.0. The rooms considered in this equation exclude bathrooms, kitchens, and CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 11 November 2002 hallways, but includes other rooms such as living and dining rooms. The 1999 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) figures showed 2,390 (9 percent) households living in overcrowded conditions of which 51 percent were Low-income households. Low- income households are those earning 80 percent or less than the county median family income (MFI). Income levels are discussed further in the "affordability' section. Substandard Units Approximately 64 percent of the City's housing stock is over 30 years old. By 2010, 78 percent of the City's housing Stock will be over 30 years. This indicates a potential need for rehabilitation and continued maintenance of nearly 19,300 dwelling units4. Affordability State and Federal standards for rental housing overpayment are based on an income-to-housing cost ratio of 30 percent and above5. Households paying greater than this percentage will have less income left over for other necessities, such as food, clothing and health care. Upper income households are generally capable of paying a larger proportion of their income for housing, and therefore estimates of housing overpayment generally focus on lower income groups. The 1999 RHNA estimates show 38 percent (8,569) of Tustin's 22,755 total households were paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing needs. Of these over-payers, 64 percent were Low-income households (<80% of MFI) of which 3,446 were classified as Very Low-income households (<50% of MFI). The distinction between renter and owner housing overpayment is important because, while homeowners may over-extend themselves financially to afford the option of home purchase, the owner always 4 Housing Element Technical Memorandum Table HTM-21. 5 Some agencies and organizations consider Moderate Income households to be overpaying when housing costs exceed 35 percent of gross income, with the maximum income representing 110% of the median county income. Under these assumptions, overpayment occurs in fewer households in the City of Tustin. Source: Strategies for Planning and Development: California Affordable Housing Handbook, California Redevelopment Association, 2000. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 12 November 2002 maintains the option of selling the home, thereby generally lowering housing costs. In addition, home ownership affords tax benefits to reduce monthly costs. Renters are limited to the rental market, and are generally required to pay the rent established in that market. According to the RHNA, of the total 5,494 lower income households identified as overpayers, 4,444 were renter households and 1,050 were owner households. This discrepancy is largely reflective of the disproportionate number of rental housing units in the City and the tendency of renter households to have lower incomes than owner households (see Table HTM-12 in Technical Memorandum). In order to understand the development parameters under which new affordable units can be produced, a review of affordable housing projects assisted by the Orange County Housing and Commtmity Development Department through the 1999 and 2000 NOFA/RFP was conducted (see Table H-6). Nine projects were built during this cycle with a total of 841 units, with one of the projects located in the City of Tustin. The table shows that these projects ranged in size from 5 units to 220 units with densities from 14 to over 70 units per acre. Three of the nine projects had densities under 20 units per acre. The weighted average density is 34 units per acre. The level of subsidy required ranged from under $4,000 per unit up to $58,000 per unit with a weighted average of about $14,000 per unit. This analysis serves to demonstrate the feasibility of developing affordable apartment projects at densities in the 20 units/acre range. Table H-7 contains the results of a recent survey of market-rate apartment projects in Tustin. These projects are all located in the Tustin Ranch area and most are less than 10 years old. Average rents for studio and 1-bedroom units were found to be within the Low- income category while 2- and 3-bedroom units had average rents in the Moderate category. The densities of these projects ranged from 13 to 24 units per acre with a weighted average of 19 units per acre. This data supports the assumption that affordable market rate apartments can be provided with densities in the range of 24 units per acre. CITY OF TUb'TIN HOUSING ELEMENT 13 November 2002 ¢'-, o Affordability Gap Analysis: In addition to information related to Housing Constraints provided in the City's Housing Element Technical Memorandum, a Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy has been prepared. The report contains a detailed affordability gap analysis to illustrate the "gap" between the cost of developing housing for rent and ownership and what households at a variety of income levels can afford to pay toward their housing expenses. A Summary of Renter and Owner Affordability Gaps for certain prototypical unit types and incomes are provided as Appendix "B.6' Special Needs Groups Certain segments of the population may have a more difficult time finding decent, affordable housing due to special circumstances and may require specific accommodation or assistance to meet their housing needs. Included as special needs groups are the elderly, disabled, female-headed households, large families, and homeless. With the closure of MCAS-Tustin, military personnel are no longer covered as a special needs group. Additionally, there are no known "farmworkers" residing in Tustin and, therefore, this group is not discussed. Elderly: The special needs of many elderly households result from lower fixed incomes, physical disabilities, and dependence needs. In 1990, 3,843 persons or 7.6 percent of the total population in Tustin were 65 years of age or older. In 1990, there were 2,265 elderly households in Tustin and owner households represented the majority at 70 percent (1,596 households). According to California State University at Fullerton's Center for Demographic Research Center (CDR), there was a slight increase in the elderly population in 1997 at 5,214 or 7.9 percent of the total population (See Technical Memorandum Table HTM-2). As noted in the Table HTM-11 of the Technical Memorandum, nearly one-quarter of the elderly earn an annual income of less than $15,000 and 40 percent earn less than $25,000 annually. Thus, this population needs housing that is affordable and located in close proximity to public services and transportation. 6 Summary based on data contained in Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 2000-2010. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 16 November 2002 Disabled: Physical disabilities can hinder access to housing units of traditional design and potentially limit the ability to earn adequate income. According to the 1990 Census, there were 2,162 disabled people in the City. The disabled community, as defined by the California Department of Rehabilitation California Disability Survey, includes four classifications of disabilities. The discussion, analysis, classifications, and percentages of the total disabled population can be found in the Technical Memorandum page 17 and Table HTM-13. Special housing needs of disabled individuals include wheelchair accessibility, railings, and special construction for interior living spaces. The Housing Element sets forth policies to encourage the development of disabled-accessible housing (see policies 1.10, 1.13, 1.15 and programs 1.9 and 1.21). Large Families: A family household containing five or more persons, as defined by the Census, is considered a large family. Large families are identified, as groups with special housing needs because of the limited availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units. Large families are often.of lower income, frequently resulting in the overcrowding of smaller dwelling units and accelerating unit deterioration. According to the 1990 Census, 2,033 family households, or 11 percent of all households, had five or more persons. 1999 data from National Decision Systems shows 3,095 large households, representing 13.6 percent of total City households (see Housing Element Technical Memorandum Table HTM-14). Female-Headed Parent Households: The housing needs of female- headed households with children are generally related to affordability since such households typically have lower than average incomes. According to the 1990 Census, the City of Tustin had 1,178 female-headed households with children less than 18 years of age. The Homeless: Measuring the extent of the homeless population specifically in Tustin remains a challenge for community leaders. To complicate the challenge of meeting homeless persons' needs, the issue of homelessness is considered regional in nature. Nomadic tendencies of homeless persons make it difficult to assess the population accurately on a citywide basis. Nonetheless, CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 17 November 2002 homelessness must be addressed on a countywide basis in conjunction with cities and local non-profit organizations. According to 1999 studies prepared by the Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development (OCH/CD), it is estimated that there are 14,000 homeless persons in the County on any given night. Two-thirds of the County's homeless population includes families with children. OCH/CD also reported that within the homeless population there are sub-populations (See Technical Memorandum Table HTM-15). City of Tustin Police Department reports and windshield surveys have shown that there are no established areas where homeless persons congregate in the City, and that most persons migrate through Tustin rather than stay for extended periods of time. The City's Police Department7 estimates that there are currently 10-12 homeless persons residing in the City at any given time. Within the City, there are a variety of non-profit services that provide direct housing and other services to homeless persons. These include a transitional housing facility (Sheepfold), temporary housing for teenagers in crisis (Laurel House) and a feeding program affiliated with the United Way (Feedback Foundation). Sheepfold and Laurel House are typically located in R-1 districts and are permitted by right under State Law related to Community Care Facilities. The City's current code related to homeless, transitional housing, boarding houses are as follows: A group housing arrangement (where less than six (6) residents) in a single family home is not subject to City permits (consistent with State Law). A group housing arrangement of over six (6) residents is classified as a boarding house. The R-3 and R-4 districts would allow for boarding houses with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A group home serving clients in a multi-family dwelling unit would fall under this definition. · The anticipated facilities at the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan will permit transitional and emergency shelters by right. A number of local churches in Tustin also provide services to the homeless including St. Cecilia's, Redhill Lutheran, Tustin 7 Officer G. Vallevienie, Tustin Police Department, 2000. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 18 November 2002 Presbyterian Church and Aldersgate. A list of services provided by these organizations is provided in Table H-8. Table H- 8 EMERGENCY SHELTER/TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FACILITIES 1999 CITY OF TUSTIN Facility Services Provided Provides shelter, food, clothing, job-training, and job- Sheepfold referral services to women with children. Temporary housing for teenagers in crisis. The facility also provides food, informal counseling, and access to medical Laurel House care and clothing. St. Cecilia's Distributes food supply to needy populations. Operates emergency food program where a person can Redhill Lutheran receive food supply 3 times a year. Collects food supplies and distributes the food to various Tustin Presbyterian organizations involved in providing homeless services. Refers interested persons to Ecumenical Services Alliance Aldersgate in Santa Ana. Source: Cit~ of Tustin Consolidated Plan 2000-2005 A significant portion of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) is located within the City. The MCAS Tustin facility was identified by the U.S. Department of Defense for closure in July 1999. In accordance with the Base Closure Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (Redevelopment Act), the City of Tustin was formally recognized as the Local Redevelopment Authority for the MCAS Tustin. The Redevelopment Act provides a process that aims to balance the needs of the homeless with other development interests in the communities directly affected by closure of the installation. The Act requires the Local Redevelopment Authority to prepare a reuse plan and Homeless Assistance Plan (HAP), which is submitted to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD reviews and determines whether the documents balance the needs of the homeless in communities in the vicinity of the installation with the need for economic development. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 19 November 2002 A Homeless Assistance Plan has been eStablished for MCAS, Tustin that is consistent with the continuum of care model embodied in the Consolidated Plans for the Cities of Tustin and neighboring Irvine. The fundamental components of the continuum of care system to be implemented with the MCAS, Tustin Reuse Plan would: o Provide emergency shelter beds and intake assessment o Offer transitional housing and services Provide opportunities for permanent affordable housing by the private sector. In the MCAS Reuse Plan, four homeless service providers, including the Salvation Army, Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter, Families Forward, and DOVE Housing have been approved to operate 50 family units at the former base. The Orange County Rescue Mission will also operate a 192-unit transitional/emergency shelter. Numerous other agencies provide shelter and other services to the homeless in the nearby cities of Santa Ana, Irvine, and Orange. The Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force, a non-profit homeless advocacy organization, maintains a list of these and other homeless services in Orange County. Additional discussion regarding land use regulations that apply to facilities serving the homeless is found in the Housing Constraints section of this document and in the Technical Memorandum. PRESERVATION OF UNITS AT RISK OF CONVERSION Tustin has one project that contains units at risk of converting to unrestricted market rate during the 2000-2005 planning period. Tustin Gardens is a 101-unit Section 221(D)(4) project with a Section 8 contract for 100 units that was due to expire on July 13, 2000. Projects financed under the Section 221(D)(4) market rate program alone have no binding income use restrictions. Current provisions under the law allow for the existing project to opt out of contracts or for HUD to terminate such contracts. The project owners of Tustin Gardens have indicated that they intend to continue or to accept the conversion of the project to individual Section 8 certificates (household by household income qualifying criteria). CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 20 November 2002 Table H-9 is an inventory of all multi-family rental units assisted under federal state, and/or local programs, including HUD programs, state and local bond programs, redevelopment programs, and local in-lieu fee, inclusionary, density bonus, or direct assistance programs. The inventory includes all units that are eligible to convert to non-lower income housing uses due to termination of subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or expiring use restrictions. Various restrictions and incentives affect the likelihood that at risk units will convert to other uses. Congress passed the Low Income Housing and Residential Homeownership Act (LIHPRHA) in 1991. This measure assured residents that their homes would be preserved for their remaining useful lives while owners were assured of fair- market compensation. However, modifications to the Act in 1996 restored the owners' right to prepayment, under the previsions that the owner would be encouraged to sell the property to resident endorsed or other non-profit organizations. Three different alternatives have been evaluated in addressing "at risk" units during the 2000-2005 planning period, including replacement of existing units by means of newly constructed units, acquiring and rehabilitating units, and local rental subsidy assistance. Replacement: Replacement of any lost "assisted" units at Tustin Gardens would cost $125,883 per unit. Applying this figure to the Tustin Gardens project, replacing all assisted units would cost approximately $12,588,300. Acquisition: Alternatively, should these "at risk" units be acquired, the per-unit cost would be less at $100,777 per unit provided rehabilitation was required. Accordingly, the acquisition of all units at Tustin Gardens would cost approximately $10,077,700. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 21 November 2002 Rental Subsidy: An option for preservation of at-risk units assisted by either project based Section 8 funds and/or bond financing would be a conversion of the project to a tenant based Section 8 assistance program or alternatively a local rental subsidy to the owner to benefit maintaining affordable rent levels for residents. Rent subsidies can also be structured to mirror the tenant-based Section 8 voucher or certificate programs. These options could be used to retain the affordable status of the units, by providing assistance for residents when their affordable units convert to market rate. Rent subsidies using state, local (Redevelopment Agency or City, the use of HOME funds, or other funding sources) can be used to maintain the affordability of these at-risk units. The cost of providing subsidies for all 100 at-risk units at Tustin Gardens to maintain subsidized rents assumes that none of the at- risk units are preserved. The cost of providing a rental subsidy for the at-risk units is $10,700 per month, or $128,400 per year, as shown in Table HTM-30 of the Technical memorandum document. Contract Extension: Tustin Gardens is the only project based Section 8 subsidized project at-risk of losing affordability restrictions during the Housing Element planning period. However, it appears unlikely that the affordability of these units will be threatened based on the determination that project based Section 8 contracts can be renewed on an annual basis. In fact, the owner has indicated in writing their agreement to convert the project to a tenant-based Section 8 assistance program. Programs for Preservation of At-Risk Units: The cost of acquiring and preserving the at-risk units is less than replacing the units with new construction. As discussed earlier the total cost of replacing the project is estimated to be $12,588,300, whereas acquiring the Tustin Gardens project would cost a total of $10,077,700 (see Table HTM-28 and accompanying text). If the "Affordable Gap" were subsidized, the required commitment of resources for preserving the Tustin Gardens units "at risk" by providing rental subsidies is much lower, at $10,700 monthly or $128,400 annually. The City monitors at risk housing units to ensure that those units will not be lost as Low-income housing. The City will subsidize units and/or work with nonprofits in the community to explore possible new construction of replacement housing by nonprofits or acquisition of existing buildings with at risk units by nonprofit CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 24 November 2002 organizations. The City will make efforts to preserve units "at risk" at Tustin Gardens. Specific actions that the City will take to protect (or replace) at risk units are identified in the Housing Element Implementation Program. SUMMARY OF HOUSING ISSUES Housing is a fundamental component of land use within a community necessary to support the resident population. Obtaining affordable housing has become a problem for persons of all income groups in California. The following Table H-10 presents an overview of households in the City with special housing needs or problems with their existing housing, such as overpayment or overcrowded conditions. The following text hig ~hlights the issues relevant to the City of Tustin, which are addressed by the goals, policies and implementation plans. Table H- 10 SUMMARY OF EXISTING HOUSING NEEDS CITY OF TUSTIN 1998-2005 Growth Needs ~,~ Very Low (Units) Low (Units) Moderate (Units) Above-Moderate (Units) 694 489 3,298* TOTAL Renter Owner TOTAL Overcrowding 2'3~00 2,390 Special Needs Group 2 Elderly Persons [ 3,843 Disabled Persons I 2,162 Large Households2 3,095 Female-Headed Households 1,178 with Children under 18 years Overpaying Households Renter - Total Renter - <80% MFI Owner - Total Owner - <80% MFI Total 5,518 4,444 3051 1,050 8,569 ~ Regional Housing Needs Assessment, City of Tustin, 1999. 2 Households containing 5 or more people. 3 See discussion on Tustin concerns regarding need methodology employed by SCAG. Sources: 1990 Census. * The OCCOG recommended: 505 units for the Very Low Income households, 355 units for the Low Income households, 566 units for the Moderate Income households, and 973 for the AbOVe Moderate Income households for a total of 2,399 new construction needs. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 25 November 2002 Overpayment. 70 percent of the City's lower income house- holds (households which earn less than 80 percent of the County median) are currently overpaying for housing (see Table HTM-12). Overcrowding. Household overcrowding has increased over the past decade as individuals and families "double up" to save on housing costs. Over 15 percent of lower income households currently experience overcrowded conditions (see Table HTM-8). Housing Growth Needs. For the 1998-2005 planning period, SCAG identifies a housing growth need of 3,298 dwelling units in Tustin. These units are allocated among the following income categories: 1,337 above-moderate income units; 778 moderate-income units; 489 low-income units; and 694 very- low income units (see Table H-10). On July 26, 1999, the City of Tustin appealed the draft Construction Need/Vacancy Need methodology to the Orange County Council of Governments (Delegate Sub- Region) through the Alternative Dispute Resolution Process. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Board recommended approval of the City's appeal to the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) Board. On August 19, 1999, the OCCOG adopted Resolution No. 99-03 approving the RHNA for the Orange County sub-region. Included in that action was the recommendation that the Regional Council (SCAG) adjust the Vacancy rates for MCAS, Tustin because the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the 1990 Census data vacancy rates did not accurately reflect the base closure. The OCCOG recommended as follows: 505 units for the Very Low Income households, 355 units for the Low Income households, 566 units for the Moderate Income households, and 973 for the Above Moderate Income households for a total of 2,399 units new construction needs. On December 9, 1999 and June 22, 2000, the City of Tustin appealed the RHNA Vacancy Need numbers that were used to calculate total construction needs for the City of Tustin. The appeal was based on a unique situation in that 985 housing units located at the based were not properly counted as vacant housing units by the Department of Finance and are not reflected in the 1990 census credited vacancy CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 26 November 2002 methodology. The SCAG Community, Economic, and Human Development (CEHD) Committee rejected both appeals despite the recommendation by the Orange County Council of Governments. Accordingly, while the City has prepared this Housing Element using the figures determined by SCAG, the City respectfully maintains its concern over the RHNA Vacancy Need methodology. Large Families. 13.6 percent of City's households contain 5 more persons in the households. The average household size in the City increased from 2.7 in 1990 to 2.92, largely due to changes in the ethnic composition. This indicates a potential need for larger housing units to accommodate these families (see Table HTM-14). Affordability Gap. Based upon available information on rental rates in the City, it is difficult to find rental housing that is large enough and affordable for large, low-income families (see Table HTM-24 and Table HTM-25). Elderly. As the City's population ages, the number of elderly persons will increase. This underscores an increasing need to address the special housing needs of the elderly (see Table HTM-2). Disabled. Disabled individuals have particular housing needs relating to access and adaptability. Female-Headed Parent Households. Female-headed households make up an increasing percentage of the City's population. Many of these households have incomes below the poverty level and have special housing needs such as access to childcare services. Homeless. Growing numbers of homeless persons in Southern California have created particular housing and social service needs. The closure of MCAS Tustin provides an opporttmity for additional housing supply in the City including accommodation of the needs of the homeless and the need for affordable housing (see Table HTM-15). In addition, a group housing arrangement (with less than six (6) residents) in a single family home is not subject to a CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 27 November 2002 Conditional Use Permit (consistent with State Law). A group housing arrangement of over six (6) residents is classified as a boarding house. The R-3 and R-4 districts would allow for boarding houses with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). First Time Homebuyers. High housing costs have put home ownership beyond the reach of many potential first-time homebuyers. Governmental Constraints. Governmental regulations, such as land use controls, fees, and processing procedures, can act as constraints to the maintenance and production of housing. Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate. By State law, the City must identify and develop programs and policies to address affordable housing units that are at risk of converting to market rate housing. During the 2000-2005 planning period, the City of Tustin faces the potential conversion of 100 low-income units (see Table HTM-27). Tenure. The City has a high proportion of renter-occupied housing as compared to other jurisdictions in Orange County, In 1999, 59.3 percent of the City's units were renter-occupied, compared to 40.7 percent renter occupied units countywide. Promotion of home ownership opportunities in the City may be necessary to maintain a balanced community (see Table HTM-20). Housing Stock Condition. Over 64 percent of the City's housing stock is 30 years old or older - the age at which housing typically begins to require major repairs. In addition, the lack of adequately sized affordable housing can lead to overcrowding and in turn, deteriorated housing conditions. Maintenance and improvement of existing housing conditions over the long term will require ongoing maintenance of existing units, rehabilitation or replacement of substandard housing and programs to maintain neighborhood quality (see Table HTM-21). Historic Resources. Older neighborhoods in Tustin contain several historic residences that should be preserved as part of the community's heritage. These historic homes were identified through an inventory of historic buildings in 1990. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 28 November 2002 Target Neighborhoods. A large portion of the City's lower income housing is concentrated in the southwest neighborhoods. Targeted programs such as graffiti removal proactive code-enforcement, loan and grant housing rehabilitation program, removal of abandoned vehicles, increased police presence, removal/trimming overgrown trees in public right-of-way, various physical improvements for street widening, and street lighting and alley improvements have been implemented. Energy Conservation. Due to its climate, the City can take advantage of solar energy to reduce reliance on non- renewable energy supplies. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS Actual or potential constraints on the provision and cost of housing affect the development of new housing and the maintenance of existing units for all income levels. Market, governmental, infrastructure, and environmental constraints to housing development in Tustin are summarized below and discussed in greater detail in the Housing Element Technical Memorandum. Market Constraints The high cost of renting or buying adequate housing is a primary ongoing constraint. High construction costs, land costs and market financing constraints are contributing to increases in the cost of affordable housing. Construction Costs: The 2000-2005 Tustin Consolidated Plan reports that the single largest cost associated with building a new house is the cost of building materials, usually comprising between 40 to 50 percent of the sales price of a home. These costs are influenced by many factors such as the cost of labor, building materials, and site preparation. The International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) estimates that the cost of residential wood frame construction averages $61.10 per square foot and reaches as high as $83.90 per square foot. Therefore, the costs attributed to construction alone for a typical 2,200 square foot, wood frame home would average $134,420. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 29 November 2002 A reduction in amenities and quality of building materials (above a minimum acceptability for health, safety, and adequate performance) could result in lower sales prices. Additionally, pre-fabricated, factory butt housing may provide for lower priced housing by reducing construction and labor costs. An additional factor related to construction costs is the number of units built at the same time. As the number of units developed increases, construction costs over the entire development are generally reduced based on economies of scale. This reduction in costs is of particular benefit when density bonuses are utilized for the provision of affordable housing. Land: The scarcity of land within the developed areas of the City and the price of land on the fringes are constraints adding to the cost of housing and pricing housing out of the reach of low- to moderate- income families. Financing: Interest rates can have an impact on housing costs. Some mortgage financing is variable rate, which offers an initial lower interest rate than fixed financing.. The ability of lending institutions to raise rates to adjust for inflation will cause existing households to overextend themselves financially, and create situations where high financing costs constrain the housing market. An additional obstacle for the first-time homebuyer is the minimum down-payment required by lending institutions. Even if Tustin homebuyers are able to provide a 3 percent down- payment and obtain an 8.5 percent 30-year loan (loan rate for FHA or VA guaranteed loans for June 2000), monthly mortgage payments on median priced single-family detached homes in the City place such homes out of the reach of moderate and lower-income households in the City. At a 8.5 percent interest rate, monthly mortgage payments on median priced condominiums and townhouses can place such units out of reach of Tustin's low and very low income households (see Tables HTM-23 and HTM-25). The greatest impediment to homeownership, however, is credit worthiness. According to the Federal Housing Authority, lenders consider a person's debt-to-income ratio, cash available for downpayment, and credit history, when determining a maximum loan amount. Many financial institutions are willing to significantly decrease downpayment requirements and increase loan amounts to persons with good credit rating. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 30 November 2002 Persons with poor credit ratings may be forced to accept a higher interest rate or a loan amount insufficient to purchase a house. Poor credit rating can be especially damaging to lower-income residents, who have fewer financial resources with which to qualify for a loan. The FHA is generally more flexible than conventional lenders in its qualifying guidelines and allows many residents to re-establish a good credit history. Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to report lending activity by census tract. Analysis of available HMDA reports does not indicate documented cases of underserved lower income census tracts in the City. Profit, Marketing and Overhead: Developer profits generally comprise 8 to 12 percent of the selling price of single-family homes and slightly lower for condominiums. However, in communities like Tustin where the market demand for housing is high in comparison to the available housing supply, developers are able. to command higher prices and may realize greater margins of profit. Marketing and overhead costs also add to the price of homes. Governmental Constraints Housing affordability is affected by factors in the private and public sectors. Actions by the City can have an impact on the price and availability of housing. Land use controls, site improvement requirements, building codes, fees and other local programs intended to improve the overall quality of housing may serve as a constraint to housing development. Land Use Controls: In efforts to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare, government agencies may place administrative constraints on growth through the adoption and implementation of land use plans and ordinances. The General Plan may restrict growth if only limited areas are set aside for residential land uses, and if higher residential densities are not accommodated. The zoning ordinance may impose further restrictions if development standards are too rigid, or if zoning designations do not conform to existing land uses. Tustin's existing zoning ordinance allows for a range of residential densities from a maximum effective density of approximately 4.35 CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 31 November 2002 units per net acre in the E-4 Residential Estate District to 24.9 units per net acre in the R-3 Multiple Family Residential District and 10 units per net acre in the MHP Mobilehome Park District (see Table HTM-31). The Planned Community District has authorized residential subdivisions with single-family lots of 3,500-5,000 square feet, which significantly increases density potential. Within the Multi-Family Residential District (R-3), a 35 foot height limitation and 65 percent coverage precludes the development of high-rise housing projects. In the interest of protecting adjoining single-family lot owners, multifamily structures above 20 feet in height require a conditional use permit when the structures are within 150 feet of single-family residentially zoned lots. While these height limits may place some restrictions on housing development, these limits are designed to maintain compatibility of land use intensity and to ensure proper and effective transportation within the community and are commonly used by local governments as a development tool to further this ideal. The Land Use Element indicates that residential development that supports commercial uses may also be permitted in the City's Old Town Commercial area. A market analysis of the Old Town area prepared in conjunction with comprehensive 1994 General Plan Amendments, indicated that new multi-family residential development would be an important supporting use for the area's mixed-used commercial/retail development. As a result, the General Plan was amended to permit up to 291 additional residential units in the Old Town commercial area. To ensure compatibility of residential uses with the commercial area, the location, density, and building intensity standards for these residential units will be governed by planned community regulations or adoption of a specific plan. The East Tustin Specific Plan provides for single-family detached products to be developed at a variety of densities. The Low Density designation requires a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet while the Medium-Low designation requires a minimum lot area of 3,000 square feet and densities not to exceed 5 and 10 units per acre respectively. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan designation provides opportunities for development of a variety of residential products at varied density ranging up to 25 dwelling units per acre. The Final Joint EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of the MCAS-Tustin (hereafter referred to as CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 32 November 2002 Program EIS/EIR for MCAS-Tustin) for the reuse of the base identifies specifiC improvements needed to support residential development. The buildout of the Reuse Plan is expected to occur incrementally over a 20+ year timeframe. The actual level of development within any given phase will be tied to the availability of infrastructure necessary to support such development. Implementation triggers of specific infrastructure improvements are included in the EIS/EIR for the project. The anticipated timing of residential development of the MCAS- Tustin project is as follows: CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 33 November 2002 Future market demand and the complexity and timing of environmental cleanup efforts are additional factors influencing the schedule of development. Current litigation surrounding the development of the base may also delay the construction of housing units. 'Other than the MCAS Tustin area, a large proportion of the small amount of vacant and underutilized land is located within Redevelopment Project areas within the City or Old Town residential areas where infrastructure is available and no major improvements would be anticipated. Limited residential uses are also permitted in areas designated Public/Institutional provided the intended occupants are associated with the primary institutional uses. Additionally, homeless facilities are permitted by right in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and are allowed throughout the remainder of the City either as an outright use or with a conditional use permit depending on the number of residents in the project. Parking requirements in Tustin are generally two spaces per unit, with an additional requirement of one guest space per every four units in multi-family development. In response to State mandated requirements and local needs, the City has adopted ordinances allowing for the development of accessory rental units and density bonuses. Beyond local requirements, state law allows developers to increase the density of a residential development by at least 25 percent if 20 percent of the units are allocated for lower and moderate-income housing. One additional incentive or financial equivalent (such as modified development standards or waiver/reduction application or development fees) is granted to all residential development meeting the 20 percent density bonus requirement for Lower income housing. In response to state-mandated requirements and local needs, the City allows for second dwelling units. Second units serve to augment resources for senior housing and the needs of other segments of the population. Second dwelling units are permitted with a Conditional Use permit (CUP) in residentially zoned properties that are at least 12,000 square feet in size. A two-car garage is required. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 35 November 2002 The City's land use regulatory mechanisms accommodate the development of housing at a range of densities and products and do not constrain the potential for new construction at densities suitable to meet the needs of all income ranges, although assistance may be required for units offered at prices affordable to lower income households. Fees and Improvements: Various fees and assessments are charged by the city and other outside agencies (e.g., school districts) to cover costs of processing permits and providing services and facilities, such as utilities, schools and infrastructure. These fees are assessed based on the concept of cost recovery for services provided. Tustin is urbanized with most of the necessary infrastructure, such as streets, sewer and water facilities in place. Nonetheless, site improvements can significantly add to the cost of producing housing. Cost-effective site planning or use of housing set-aside funds for those projects within redevelopment project areas can minimize site improvement costs. The Housing Element Technical Memorandum describes in detail required site improvements and provides a list of fees associated with development (Table HTM-33) Development fees are not considered a constraint to housing. However, fees do contribute to the total cost of development and impact the final purchase or rental price. Building Codes and Enforcement: The City of Tustin adopts the Uniform Construction Codes, as required by State law, which establish minimum construction standards as applied to residential buildings. The City's building codes are the minimum standards necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and ensure safe housing. Only local modifications to the codes are made which respond to local climatic or geographic conditions and clarify administrative procedures. Although not mandated to do so, the City has adopted the State Historical Code that relaxes building code requirements citywide for historic structures/buildings. Adoption of codes reduces rehabilitation costs. Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The evaluation and review process required by City procedures contributes to the cost of housing in that holding costs incurred by developers are ultimately manifested in the unit's selling price. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 36 November 2002 State law establishes maximum time limits for project approvals and City policies provide for the minimum processing time necessary to comply with legal requirements and review procedures. The Community Development Department serves as the coordinating agency to process development applications for the approval of other in-house departments such as Fire, Police, Public Works/Engineering, and Community Services. All projects are processed through plan review in the order of submission. The City has eliminated the potential increase in financing costs caused by a delay in permit processing by assigning priority to the plan review and permit issuance for low-income housing projects. If a complete application is submitted, all Design Review Committee members and plan checking departments simultaneously review the plans. This process provides for a "one-stop" processing system. For projects of significant benefit to the low-income community, costs can be waived by the City Council or the use of redevelopment set-aside funds can reduce or eliminate these costs to the developer. Workload: Another governmental constraint is the number of staff and amount of staff time available for processing development projects. Since the workload is determined by outside and uncontrolled forces (economy and market for housing and availability of general fund revenue), a shortage of staff time may occur which could lead to increased processing ffrne for deVelopment projects. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES Table H-12 shows the existing and potential dwelling units permitted under each General Plan land use category, as well as the potential net increase within each category. Based on the City's Land Use Plan, Tustin has a residential holding capacity of approximately 29,793 dwelling units, providing for a potential increase of 4,907 units over the current total of 24,886 units. The Land Use Plan provides for a mix of unit types and densities, including low-density single-family homes, medium density homes, higher density homes, and mixed- use projects that allow for a combination of commercial and residential uses. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 37 November 2002 A large portion of future residential development in the City of Tustin will take place in the MCAS Tustin Reuse Specific Plan area. The other large Specific Plan community in Tustin, Tustin Ranch (the East Tustin Specific Plan) has been almost built out with little development potential remaining. Between 1998 and 2000, 1,378 units were constructed in the City of Tustin. A total of 874 Moderate- Income and 464 Above Moderate-Income units were built in Tustin Ranch; 8 Moderate-Income and 30 Above Moderate-Income units were built in the Warmington project (Town Center Redevelopment Project Area); and 2 Moderate-Income units were constructed in Mountain View. With the exception of the Warmington project (8 restricted units), none of the units are deed restricted. Since 1,378 units were built between 1998 and 2000, they are located under the "Existing DU's" column in Table H-12. These units, however, are reflected in the Quantified Objectives for 1998-2005 (see Table H-17). TABLE H- 12 LAND INVENTORY AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 2000-2005 ii'~iiiiiii::tiiiiii~iiii:.iiill General Plan Medium Density Residential 371 2.67 ili)ii iiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiil ~i 0 iiiiiiiiiii i~ iiiiiiiiii[i~liiii iiil iiiiiiiiiiiii~i 412 (8-15 au/ac) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan 0 (3) 389.2 ii?~;;:~ il i~iil i:?~ 0 .~ 4,049 ::~::~::~i::i~i~;:~::~i~:E i~::~ ~::i;;i::~;;~::i:/:!:.~!~i~il::!:.~i~iiSii ~':' ":::' ':'~::':"~::~i PC Low Density Residential 2,874 378.95 0 ?,ii iiiiiiii!iiiiil!~iiii iiii!iiii~ii!iiii!iii:~iiii!~i!il ........................... ' .................... ' (1) Number of existing housing units in the City of Tustin based on Tustin General Plan Land Use Element, 2001 - Table LU-3 "Future Land Use Density/Intensity and Population Capacity of The Land Use Plan." DUs = dwelling units (2) All of these potential dwelling units are in East Tustin. Densities used are from Table LU-2 for East Tustin (Low = 4.485, Medium = 11.834, High =17.39). Potential dwelling units represent built out capacity for Tustin Ranch. (3) Existing units at MCAS Tustin have been vacated as of July 1999 and units may be uninhabitable. (4) Includes 192 units of emergency housing and 60 units of transitional family housing. Source: Tuslin General Plan Land Use Element, 2001. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 38 November 2002 Table H-13 illustrates Tustin's progress in achieving RHNA construction needs for the 1998-2005 planning period. As of 2000, the City has satisfied approximately 42 percent of its total RHNA Construction Need. Table H- 13 PROGRESS TOWARD RHNA CONSTRUCTION NEEDS 1998-2000 CITY OF TUSTIN RHNA Net RHNA Construction Construction Need Units Added Need Income Catel~ory 1998-2005 1998-2000 2000-2005 Very-Low 694 0 (0%) 694 Low 489 0 (0%) 489 Moderate 778 884 (114%) (106) Above Moderate 1,337 494 (37%) 843 Total 3,298 1,378 (42%) 1,920 1 Source: Cit~ of Tustin. Table H-14 illustrates the residential development potential of the vacant and underutilized land inventory in the City of Tustin. The MCAS Tustin site presents the City with 389.2 acres suited for residential development that could accommodate an additional 4,049 units. Approximately eighty-three (83) percent of the 4,907 potential new units in Tustin will be provided at the MCAS Tustin site. The MCAS Tustin site is proposed to be implemented through both the adoption of a Specific Plan by the City and the adoption of a Redevelopment Project Area by Fiscal Year 2002-03. Based on State Redevelopment Law and the proposed Specific Plan requirements, at least 15 percent of the units (607 units) constructed at the MCAS Tustin site will be affordable to Very-Low, Low, and Moderate- income households, of which at least 6 percent or 243 units must be affordable to Very Low-income households. The remaining 364 units would be distributed among the Low and Moderate income households by utilizing RHNA Low and Moderate income percentages (140 units for Low Income households and 224 Moderate income households). In addition to these inclusionary obligations, the acreage and densities permitted by the MCAS-Tustin Reuse Plan would create 252 additional for Very Low-income households (192 transitional housing units and 60 social services housing units). CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 39 November 2002 Aside from MCAS Tustin, additional sites are located either within existing Redevelopment project areas or in Old Town Tustin area. Sites that are located within the Redevelopment Project area subject to Redevelopment Law as well. As a means to ensure affordability and the use of housing set-aside funds, the City and its Redevelopment Agency will require developers to provide at least 15 percent of all units constructed or rehabilitated at prices affordable to Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income households consistent with State Redevelopment Law affordable housing requirements. The City's Redevelopment Agency aggressively negotiates affordable housing units with individual potential project. An example of recently approved infill site is the development of a fifty-four (54) unit affordable senior housing project on a 1.76 acre site. The project applied a twenty-five (25) percent density bonus above the City's maximum allowable density. In addition, the City entered into a Disposition and Developer Agreement with the developer to issue loans not to exceed $600,000. The loans are secured by loan agreements, promissory notes and deeds of trust, along with Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants to be recorded against the property for a period of not less than 55 years. The project is 100 percent affordable to very low and low income seniors. The remaining capacity in Old Town Tustin will be achieved through recycling of underutilized and vacant infill sites (see Figure 1). According to the City's Land Use Element, the sites in Old Town Tustin area are able to accommodate an overall population range for residential use of 2-54 persons per acres. The Land Use Element further identifies the potential development of dwelling units in the Old Town Commercial area, which will be facilitated by the proposed adoption of zoning regulations and development standards which will allow mixed-use development (see Program 1.21 of Table H-22 Housing Element Programs). This development potential is supported by the market analysis of the Old Town area. 8 See Table LU-3 - "Future Land Use Density/Intensity and Population Capacity of the Land Use Plan" in the City of Tustin General Plan Land Use Element, January 16, 2001. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 40 November 2002 To further create housing opportunities, the City provides the issuance of tax-exempt bonds for the development of affordable housing through a Joint Powers Authority with the California Statewide Communities Development Authority. Other means would include the City's participation in the State and Federal programs such as the Low- Income Housing Revenue Bond Financing program, Low Income Tax Credits, CHFA financing programs, and others. Additionally, a Density Bonus Ordinance is available and can be applied to infill sites to increase allowable density and the Tustin City Code also provides for a Planned Community District which allows flexibility in site development standards such as the creation of smaller lots to allow for higher density. HCD guidelines indicate that housing units constructed at densities of 25 dwelling unit per acre are considered affordable to Very Low- income households. As demonstrates in Table H-14, there are a total of 60.72 acres of land (38.5 acres from MCAS Tustin [see Table H-11], 7.56 acres vacant land, and 14.66 underutilized land) with High Density residential development potential. These sites could potential be developed with approximately 1,518 units. This demonstrates that the City has sufficient amount of land available to accommodate the Very Low and LoTM income residential developments to meet the remaining needs through the 2005 period. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 41 November 2002 Figure I and Table H-15 detail the zoning designations of vacant and underutilized land in Tustin. The vacant and underutilized land inventory includes land that is currently zoned medium- and high- density residential and land that could potentially be designated as high-density residential. However, the tables do not include vacant and underutilized land to be developed under Planned Development regulations or under a Specific Plan designation (i.e. MCAS-Tustin Specific Plan). Although the availability of vacant and underutilized land for the provision of housing is not considered a constraint for the 1998-2005 planning period, future planning periods may be marked by a lack of available land. While the City's Land Use Plan provides an adequate land capacity to fulfill housing needs, current development costs in Tustin may preclude the private housing market from providing affordability for low and very low-income households without subsidies. Necessary infrastructure improvements and litigation constraints may cause some delays in the build-out development of the MCAS Tustin project. The City cannot guarantee that RHNA needs will be met given limited resources, limited vacant land, the gap between housing costs and incomes, and fluctuations in the local economy. Satisfaction of the City's quantified objectives through new construction will be heavily dependent upon real estate market trends, cooperation of private funding sources, and available funding and programs at the local, county, state and federal levels. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 43 November 2002 FigUre 1 - Conventionally Zoned Vacant & Underutilized Land in the City of Tustin* *Figure 1 depicts the general locations of the development sites and excludes land in Planned Communities and MCAS Tustin. TUSTIN ....... c~ u~e'r~ MAP ~ Vast ~ Undem~d CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT November 2002 44 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 45 November 2002 Table H- 15 VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND6 CITY OF TUSTIN ID~ I ParcelNumber [Location I Acres [Zoning Vacant Land I 401-521-21 158 Mountain View 0.14 R-12 401-521-22 160 Mountain View 0.14 R-12 401-521-23 168 Mountain View 0.14 g-12 401-521-24 Mountain View 0.14 R-12 2 500-201-02 Browning 2.67 ETSP3 3 401-543-03 170 Pasadena Avenue 0.30 R-34 401-543-10 170 Pasadena Avenue 0.18 R-34 401-543-11 170 Pasadena Avenue 0.29 R-34 4 402-333-05 15651 B Street 0.26 R-34 5 432-401-04 1776 Nisson Road 0.71 R-34 6 402-031-04 16471 McFadden Avenue 0.52 C-14 7 402-301-05, 06 16801 McFadden Avenue 0.60 C-14 8 401-623-05, 06 270 East Main Street 0.74 C-2/C-2p4 9 401-253-04 14082 Enderlee Center Drive 0.85 PC Corn4 105 432-141-09 1101 Sycamore Avenue 1.76 R-34 115 401-532-28 101-139 W. First Street 1.17 FSSP4 Total Vacant Land 10.79 Underutilized Land 12 401-584-04 250 Prospect Avenue 0.34 C-2/C-2P4 401-584-05 155 Third Street 0.17 C-2/C-2P4 401-584-06 255 E1 Camino Real 0.17 C-2/C-2P4 401-584-07 245 E1 Camino Real 0.17 C-2/C-2p4 401-584-08 235 E1 Camino Real 0.17 C-2/C-2p4 13 401-623-08 275 Sixth Street 2.99 C-2/C-2p4 401-623-09 n/a 0.45 C-2/C-2P4 401-623-10 515 E1 Camino Real 0.55 C-2/C-2P4 401-623-11 447 E1 Camino Real 0.10 C-2/C-2P4 14 432-131-17 Tustin Block 1.40 CG4 432-131-18 Tustin Block 3.23 CG4 15 401-522-08 433-435 W. First Street 1.03 FSSP4 16 401-581-09 185-225 Prospect Avenue 2.86 MHP4 17 401-572-03 140-150 Second Street 401-572-04 245 "C" Street 1.03 C-2p4 401-572-05 155 Third Street Total Underutilized Land 14.66 TOTAL VACANT & UNDERUTILIZED LAND 25.45 ~ See Figure 1 2 Low Density 3 Medium Density 4 High Density. Housing units in Old Town Commercial areas would be facilitated through the creation of mixed-use zoning. See Program 1.21 for additional information on mixed use zoning. 5 Senior housing 6 Excludes vacant and underutilized land in Planned Communities and at MCAS-Tustin site n/a - not available Source: Cit~ of Tustin. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 46 November 2002 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 47 November 2002 HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES This section of the Housing Element contains the goals and policies the City intends to implement to address a number of housing-related issues. To implement the Housing Element, the following five major issue areas are identified with related goals and policies: 1) ensure that a broad range of housing types are provided to meet the needs of existing and future residents; 2) provide equal housing opporttmities for all City residents; 3) ensure a reasonable balance between rental and owner occupied housing; 4) preserve existing affordable housing; 5) promote conservation and rehabilitation of housing and neighborhood identity; and 6) ensure housing is sensitive to the existing natural and built environment. HOUSING SUPPLY/HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES Tustin is home to persons requiring a variety of housing options. At different stages in their lives, people require different housing arrangements. Additionally, the City must respond to the housing needs of all economic segments of the community and ensure that housing discrimination does not serve as a barrier. It is also important that the City maintain a balance of housing types and that the City's housing stock is not overly skewed towards the provision of one type of housing. Finally, the continuing need for affordable housing in the region requires the City to attempt to preserve Low- income housing units that are at risk of converting to other uses. The City used the following goals and policies to achieve the above objectives. GOAL 1: Provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the need for a variety of housing types and the diverse socio-economic needs of all community residents. Policy 1.1: Promote the construction of additional dwelling units to accommodate Tustin's share of regional housing needs identified by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), in accordance with adopted land use policies. Policy 1.2: Provide for expanded affordable housing opportunities through acquisition and rehabilitation, and new residential development in Old Town Tustin, on other infill sites, and in the MCAS Tustin Specific/Reuse Plan Area. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 48 November 2002 Policy 1.3: Preserve affordable housing units, where possible, through actions such as the maintenance of a mobile home park zone, restrictions on R-3 zone uses to preserve the multiple family residential character, facilitate resident access to funding sources for preservation of low income and assisted housing. Policy 1.4: Promote the dispersion and integration of housing for low- and very-low income families throughout the community as opposed to within any particular geographic area, neighborhood, or project. Policy 1.5: Encourage the County of Orange to exercise its responsibilities for housing accommodations for low- and very-low income families within Tustin's sphere of influence. Policy 1.6: Utilize the Redevelopment Agency's authority, where feasible, to assist in creating opportunities which will expand opportunities for development of affordable housing in the community. Policy 1.7: Allow second (attached/detached) units in single- and multi-family districts subject to land use policy and zoning ordinance restrictions. Policy 1.8: Utilize Planned Community Districts and Specific Plans to authorize and promote a variety of lot sizes and housing types. Policy 1.9: Promote cluster housing consistent with General Plan land use density standards to reduce the cost of housing construction. Policy 1.10: Encourage the availability of affordable housing for special needs households, including large, low-income families. Special needs households include the elderly, large families, female-headed households, households with a disabled person, and the homeless (see discussion under Summary of Housing Needs for Special Needs Groups). Policy 1.11: Encourage incentives to assist in the preservation and development of affordable housing such as 1) reducing permit processing time and waiving or reducing applicable permit fees; 2) on-site density bonuses when appropriate; 3) tax-exempt financing; CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 49 November 2002 4) flexibility in zoning or development standards; and 5) other financial incentives using Redevelopment Agency housing set-aside funds and special State and Federal grant and housing programs. Policy 1.12: Use tax increment housing set-aside funds of the South Central and Town Center Redevelopment Areas to assist in constructing, rehabilitating, and preserving low and moderate income housing within the jurisdiction of the City. Policy 1.13: Encourage the design and occupancy of housing for senior citizens and the disabled. Promote the construction or rehabilitation and adoption of dwelling units accessible to seniors and/or the disabled. Policy 1.14: Promote, assist, and facilitate the development of emergency and transitional housing at MCAS Tustin as was identified in the MCAS Tustin reuse planning process and provide continued support for the County Homeless Assistance Program and other homeless assistance programs within Tustin and in adjacent cities. Policy 1.15: Encourage the provision of grants and technical assistance to various organizations and agencies who provide assistance to persons with special needs such as the homeless, disabled, low-income, and elderly persons. Policy 1.16: Participate in federal and state housing assistance and rehabilitation programs aimed at assisting households in need. Policy 1.17: Utilize design criteria in evaluating projects to ensure compatibility with surrounding developments, while taking into consideration ways to minimize housing costs. Policy 1.18: Promote and encourage non-profit and for-profit private sector interests to use available federal and state programs for new or rehabilitated affordable housing. Policy 1.19: Support state-enabling legislation for employers to contribute to the cost of housing for their employees. GOAL 2: Ensure equal housing opportunities for all existing and future City residents regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, sex, age, marital status or household composition. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 50 November 2002 Policy 2.1: Promote equal opportunity housing programs within the community. Policy 2.2: Provide active support and participation with the Orange County Fair Housing Council to provide fair housing opportunities. Policy 2.3: Support programs to match elderly and low and moderate-income individuals who want to share housing costs in a joint living arrangement. Policy 2.4: Support public and private efforts to eliminate all forms of illegal discrimination in housing. Policy 2.5: Minimize displacement of lower income and special needs households, whenever possible, to ensure that displacement is carried out in an equitable manner. GOAL 3: Increase the percentage of ownership housing to ensure a reasonable balance of rental and owner-occupied housing within the City. Policy 3.1: Encourage new housing construction for home-ownership in a mixture of price ranges. Policy 3.2: Provide favorable home purchasing assistance options to low- and moderate-income households, such as down-payment assistance, mortgage credit certificates, and mortgage revenue bond financing. Policy 3.3: Encourage rental unit conversion and alternative forms of homeownership, such as shared equity ownership and limited equity cooperatives where feasible. GOAL 4: Preserve the existing supply of affordable housing in the City. Policy 4.1: Continue to use Federal and State housing initiatives available for low-income households. Policy 4.2: Monitor all federal, state and local funds available to preserve and/or replace lower income units at risk of converting to market rate housing, including tax credit bond financing and redevelopment tax increment funds. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 51 November 2002 Policy 4.3: Assist non-profit organizations in securing the resources necessary to preserve/replace lower to moderate income units at risk of converting to market rate housing. Policy 4.4: Consider incentives to non-profit housing and for-profit private sector interests to purchase and/or maintain lower income units at risk of converting to non lower income housing. MAINTENANCE AND CONSERVATION Maintenance and preservation of a City's housing stock prevents unhealthy living conditions; eliminates the need for future, more costly housing rehabilitation; prevents neighborhood deterioration; and encourages community pride. The City enforces codes and provides incentives to promote maintenance and conservation. GOAL 5: Conserve, maintain, rehabilitate, and/or replace existing housing in neighborhoods which are safe, healthful and attractive, in accordance with adopted Land Use Policy. Improve the residential character of the City with an emphasis on revitalizing neighborhoods showing signs of deterioration. Promote conservation of the City's sound housing stock, rehabilitation of deteriorated units where they may exist Citywide, and elimination of dilapidated units that endanger the health, safety and well being of occupants. Policy 5.1: Through available financial incentives, encourage owners of rental housing units that are determined to be substandard, in need of repair and a hazard to the health and safety of the occupants to remove and replace or rehabilitate the structures. Policy 5.2: Promote the availability of funds for the rehabilitation of single-family dwellings and apartments. Policy 5.3: Periodically evaluate housing conditions and, when appropriate, address any increase in deteriorated housing conditions. Policy 5.4: Continue to enforce health, safety, and zoning codes to eliminate conditions which are detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of residents. Policy 5.5: Promote preservation of historic and architecturally significant residential properties. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 52 November 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY Housing design and land use patterns can have substantial impacts on the natural as well as the built environment. City policies and programs seek to minimize negative environmental impacts. GOAL 6: Ensure that new housing is sensitive to the existing natural and built environment. Policy 6.1: Attempt to locate new housing facilities in proximity to services and employment centers thereby enabling walking or bicycling to places of employment. Policy 6.2: Promote energy conservation measures in the design of new housing units and the redevelopment of older housing units. Policy 6.3: Require design review of lot placement in subdivisions to maximize passive solar energy and solar access. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES The goals and policies described in the Housing Element are related to and support the goals and policies included within other General Plan elements. Many goals and policies from the other elements directly or indirectly support the goals and policies of the Housing Element. These supporting goals and policies are identified in Table H-16. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 53 November 2002 Table H- 16 HOUSING RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES BY ELEMENT RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES BY ELEMENT Housing Land Conservation/ Public Growth Issue Area Use Housing Circulation Open Space Safety Noise Management Housing 13.3,13.4, Opportunities 13.10 1.1,1.10 2.5, 3.1, 4.1 Maintenance 1.1, 4.6, 5.8, iii!iiii iiiiiiil iiiiiiiiiiiii 3.4, 3.5, and Preservation 6.4, 6.6 5.4 1.7, 2.2 Support Service/ Fair Housing 5.3 4.1 Environmental 9.7, 9.8, 1.14,1.17, 3.3, 4.8, 1.11, Sensitivity 13.1 ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~i~i~i:~i~i:~i~i~: 3.5 2.12, 3.1, 4.1 4.12 1.12 CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 54 November 2002 HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM The Housing Element Implementation Program provides specific actions the City intends to undertake to achieve the goals and policies of the Element. This section identifies quantified objectives, available financial resources and affordable housing resources, and provides a list of specific programs the City intends to pursue. Housing programs include those currently in operation and new programs added to address housing needs. A description of each program is provided, along with the program funding source, responsible agency, and time frame for implementation. A review of City's past performance on housing element implementation programs is contained in Appendix A of the Housing Element. FIVE YEAR QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES 2000-2005 State law requires the City to accommodate its fair share of the State's housing need. In doing so, the City must quantify the number of homes that are projected to be built and conserved. The following quantified objectives are adopted as guidelines toward meeting Tustin's housing needs through 2005. It is important to note that while the quantified objectives of the RHNA are required to be part of the Housing Element and the City will strive to attain these objectives, Tusfin cannot guarantee that these needs will be met given its own limited financial resources and the present affordability gap. Satisfaction of the City's regional housing needs will partially depend upon cooperation of private funding sources and the funding levels of County, State, and Federal programs that are used to support the needs of the very-low, low and moderate-income persons. Additionally, outside economic forces heavily influence the housing market. New Construction Objectives The City of Tustin promotes and encourages the development of a variety of housing opporttmities to accommodate current and projected housing needs which include 694 very low-, 489 low-, 778 moderate-, and 1,337 above moderate-income households per the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. While the Land Use Plan provides adequate sites to fulfill needs established by CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 55 November 2002 RHNA, construction of new units will depend upon the timing of the landowner and developer in the submission of building plans to meet market demands. Housing subsidies will depend upon the availability of government funds - local, County, State, and Federal. Redevelopment projects are subject to the interests of private developers. The construction of secondary units depends upon the desires of the property owners as related to family needs for housing and economic resources. The achievements of the housing objectives are thus dependent upon the private sector and other governmental agencies. The responsibility of the City is to encourage the construction of affordable housing by providing programs and assistance to developers and to assist in its creation by facilitating the review and approval of development permits. Table H-17 provides new construction housing objectives for the period 2000-2005. With the exception of the MCAS-Tustin, all sites identified in Table H-17 are privately owned. Units identified are broken down into various income limits in light of RHNA percentages and production requirements under the Redevelopment Law. Based upon past development trends (Tustin Grove and Ambrose Lane) that utilized Planned Community Districts to allow for higher densities, the actual number of units created could be higher than identified. The City will strive to ensure that newly constructed units are developed at sufficient densities to assist in fulfillment of low and very low income needs by employing inclusionary zoning for those sites located within redevelopment project areas, mixed use zoning in Old Town Tustin, density bonuses particularly in infill sites to allow for increase densities to accommodate affordable housing developments, and Planned Community Districts to allow for flexibility in development standards. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 56 November 2002 Table H- 17 NEW CONSTRUCTION QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES SUMMARY 1998 - 20O5 CITY OF TUSTIN Very Total # Low Low Moderate Upper Pro~ram ~ of Units /<50% I (<80°/ot 180-120% ) /120% +t New Construction 1998-2000 1,378 884 494 MCAS Tustin Housing Uni~s~ 2,599 138 2154 3334 1,913 MCAS Tustin Emergency Housing: 192 192 MCAS Tustin Transitional Family 50 50 Housing MCAS Tustin Social Services 2 60 60 Granny Flats 10 7 3 New Owner Housing 3. 432 75 175 182 New Senior Housing 97 72 25 Density Bonus 160 95 61 4 Recycling of SFD to MFD 25 5 10 10 Total Quantified Objectives 5003 694 489 1,413 2,407 RHNA 3,298 694 489 778 1,337 Difference 1,705 0 0 635 1,070 1 Of the total 4,049 potential units proposed at MC/kS Tustin, 2,599 units are expected during the planning period. Based upon State Redevelopment Law and the proposed Specific Plan requirement, at least 15 percent of the total units (607 units) would be affordable to Very-Low, Low, and Moderate income households, of which at least 6 percent or 243 units would be affordable to Very Low income households. See footnote 4 for additional indusionary units information. 2 These housing units shown as separate line items will serve as transitional/emergency housing facilities. The City counts these units as new construction as they are new additions to the housing inventory. 3 Projects at the end of planning period. 4 Includes MCAS Tustin additional indusionary traits (296 units) Source: Effectiveness of Housing Programs 1989 - 2000, City of Tustin; Five Year Implementation Plan for the Town Center and South Central Redevelol~ment Proiect Areas for Fiscal Years 2000 - 2001 to 2004 - 2005. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 57 November 2002 Preservation, Rehabilitation, and Other Affordable Housing Program Objectives The primary beneficiaries of Preservation and Rehabilitation and Assistance programs are renters and low-income homeowners. It is assumed that above-moderate-income households will rehabilitate units as needed through private efforts. Tustin's affordable housing strategy is based on the City's housing needs, affordability gap analysis, and available financial resources. Several broad policies establish the framework for the City's Housing strategy as applied to preservation, rehabilitation, and other housing program objectives. These include: 1. Conserve, maintain, and rehabilitate existing housing and revitalize existing neighborhoods; 2. Maximize the supply of affordable housing; 3. Increase homeownership; 4. Preserve the existing supply of affordable housing; and, Consistent with the above policies the City has devised a number of programs of housing assistance to address the preservation, rehabilitation, and other housing program objectives. Specific details on these programs can be found in the City of Tustin Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy for Fiscal Years 2000-2001 to 2009- 2010. In addition, Table H-22 - Summary of Programs 2000-2005, outlines the City's specific housing programs during the planning period. Table H-18 provides the City's rehabilitation, preservation, and other affordable housing objectives during the planning period. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 58 November 2002 Table H- 18 REHABILITATION, PRESERVATION, AND OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES SUMMARY 1998 - 2005 CITY OF TUSTIN Total # Very Low Low Moderate Upper Pro~ramCate~ory ~ of Units (<50%) (<80%) (80-120%) (120%+) Owner Occupied Hous~g 40 0 10 30 Renal Re~bili~on Lo~/Gran~ 120 24 48 48 Multi-Family 100 6 9 30 55 Acquisition/Rehab/Conversion/Resale Multi-Family Acquhi~on/Re~b/Ren~l 2~ 28 90 821 Tot~ Rehabilitation 460 30 95 198 137~ Tus~ Gardem 1~ 1~ R~cho Alhal 69 8 61 Rancho Maderas ~ 6 48 Rancho Tierra 51 38 13 Mfordable ~or Hous~g - Mitchell 20 12 8 Avenue ~or Board & ~re - B~ Avenue 18 18 Old Town Residential 29 14 15 Tot~ Prese~afion ~1 1~ 148 14 15 1st T~e Homebuyer Do--payment 40 10 30 Assh~nce Loam Coun~ Mo~gage Credit Ce~cates Deed Res~ic~om 620 213 159 248 ~cfion 8 Renal Voucher ~sh~nce 1,~ 1,~0 Shared Hous~g Refe~a~ 75 50 25 Homeless Hous~g P~ers~p Pro,am 242 242 Emergen~ Shelter 252 252 Tot~ ~her ~o~s Z729 Z~7 194 278 ~ These units are not recipients of affordability restrictions or funding assistance. Source: Effectiveness of Housing Programs 1989 - 2000, City of Tustin; Five Year Implementation Plan for the Town Center and South Central Redevelopment Project Areas for Fiscal Years 2000 - 2001 to 2004 - 2005; Comprehensive Housing Affordabilit/Strate~,/for Fiscal Years 200-2001 to 2009-2010. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 59 November 2002 Summary of Quantified Objectives Table H-19 summarizes the City's Quantified O~ectives for the 2000- 2005 period. Table H- 19 SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES: 2000-2005 CiTY OF TUSTIN New Rehabilitation/ Other Income Group RHNA Construction Preservation Pro,ams Very-Low 694 694 194 2,257 Low 489 489 243 194 Moderate 778 1413 212 278 Above Moderate 1,337 2,407 152 -- Total 3,298 5,003 801 2,729 Source: Cit~ of Tus~r~ IDENTIFICATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES The City has prepared a Consohdated Plan and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy identifying and describing all funding programs available to the City and Tustin Redevelopment Agency to assist in meeting the City's housing needs. Included in the plan are descriptions of a wide variety of major housing assistance programs available from federal and state agencies and private lending institutions. More specific information including detail regarding eligible projects and activities and funding availability can be found in the document. The following is a summary of this information along with updates to reflect new state and federal programs. Table H-20 provides an illustrative example of the estimated amount of locally identified resources that could be available to finance housing program objectives on an annual basis over the five-year planning period. The amounts shown are estimates, actual revenue amounts, and the timing of their availability could be more or less and would adjust over time. Specific decisions are made on an annual basis as part of the City and Redevelopment Agency budget process. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 60 November 2002 The City's anticipated revenue stream indicates that the bulk of housing revenues will start accruing in fiscal year 2001-2002 with a substantial infusion from an anticipated tax increment bond issue and HUD Supportive Housing Program funds. Therefore, most housing programs will begin to assist greater numbers of households in the early years of the planning period but will begin falling off toward the end of the five-year time frame due to a shortage of available local funds. As needed and as shown on Table H-20, the City and its Redevelopment Agency will also use State HELP program ftmds and Federal CDBG funds. The City will also utilize other State and Federal resources to leverage local resources as these funding sources match the City's programmatic objectives. Table H 22 is a summary of affordable housing resources. Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES1 CITY OF TUSTIN Multi-Family Residential Rehab- Loan/Grant Program First Time Homebuyer Program Single-Family Residential Rehab- Loan/Grant Program New Construction Rental Housing Program Density Bonus Description Assistance to owners of multi-family projects occupied by low- to moderate-income persons. Low Interest Rates and Downpayment assistance Assistance to owners of single-family projects occupied by low-income persons. Financial assistance for new affordable housing proiects. Financial assistance for affordable multi-family rental projects. The City allows an increase in density to developers who set-aside at least 20% of their project to low- income persons. Eligible Activities · Rehabilitation · First Time Homebuyer · Rehabilitation · New Construction · Acquisition · Rehabilitation · New Construction · Density Bonus CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 62 November 2002 Tax-Exempt Bonds City/Agency Owned Land CalHome California Self-Help Housing Program (CSHHP) Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES~ CITY OF TUSTIN The Redevelopment Agency and the City have the authority to issue tax- exempt bonds. The City is also a member of California Statewide Communities Development Authority. Bond proceeds are used to develop affordable housing. If available and appropriate, City or Redevelopment Agency owned land may be made available Gran~s to local public agencies and nonprofit developers to assist individual households through deferred-payment loans. Direct, forgivable loans to assist development proiects involving multiple ownership units, including single-family subdivisions. Grants are made to sponsor organizations that provide technical assistance to participating owner- builder families. · New Housing Development · Rental Acquisition/ Rehabilitation · Housing · Community Facilities · Predevelopment · Site development · New construction · Rehabilitation · Acquisition and rehabilitation · Downpayment assistance · Mortgage financing · Homebuyer counseling · Technical assistance for self-help projects or shared housing. A share of funds is allocated for the rehabilitation, replacement and repair of manufactured homes. Training and supervision of low and moderate income self- help home-builders or repairers CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 63 November 2002 Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES1 Downtown Rebound Planning Grants Program CITY OF TUSTIN Fund local planning for infill housing, adaptive reuse (conversion) of commercial and industrial space into residential units, and the development of other forms of high density housing within existing urbanized areas. Grants for emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive services for homeless individuals and families. Emergency Housing Assistance Program (EHAP) · Infill site inventories, development feasibility studies, strategic action plans to remove barriers and promote infill housing, mixed- use developments and transit corridor development · Updates of general plans and zoning ordinances to encourage adaptive reuse, higher density residential development, mixed- use development, residential development within walking distance of transit nodes, employment centers and other urban amenities · Seismic and structural feasibility studies on candidate buildings for adaptive reuse. · Rehabilitation, construction, renovation, expansion of existing facilities · Site acquisition (including lease or purchase of an existing site or facility) · Equipment purchase, vouchers, operational costs, direct and indirect client services · Administration of the award (limited to 5 percent). CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 64 November 2002 Jobs-Housing Balance Incentives Mobilehome Park Resident Ownership Program (MPROP) Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES~ CITY OF TUSTIN Financial incentives to cities and counties that demonstrate an increase in the number of new residential units. Grant amounts are based on an increase in the number of new housing units for which residential building permits were issued during calendar 2001, compared to the average number of permits during the most recent measurable 36- month period prior to 2001. Loans to finance the preservation of affordable mobilehome parks by conversion from private ownership to ownership or control by resident organizations, nonprofit housing sponsors, or local public agencies. Funds awarded can be used for any project, service, or other local need determined by the city to be in the community's best interest, including traffic improvements, neighborhood parks, bike paths, libraries, school facihties, play areas, community centers, police and fire stations, etc. · Purchase (conversion) of a mobilehome park by a resident organization, nonprofit entity or local public agency; rehabilitation or relocation of a purchased park · Purchase by a low income resident of a share or space in a converted park. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 65 November 2002 Multi family Housing Program (MHP) Urban Predevelopment Loan Program (PDLP) Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES~ CITY OF TUSTIN · Deferred payment loans to assist new construction, rehabilitation and preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing for lower income households. Short-term loans to provide predevelopment capital to finance the start of low- income housing projects in urban areas. New construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition and rehabilitation of permanent or transitional rental housing, and the conversion of nonresidential structures to rental housing. Eligible costs include the cost of child care, after-school care and social service facilities integrally linked to the assisted housing units; real property acquisition; refinancing to retain affordable rents; necessary onsite and offsite improvements; reasonable fees and consulting costs; and capitalized reserves. Predevelopment costs include, but are not limited to, site control, site acquisition for future low-income housing developments, engineering studies, architectural plans, application fees, legal services, permits, bonding and site preparation. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 66 November 2002 Urban Predevelopment Loan/Preservation Program (PDLP-P) Urban Predevelopment Loan/Jobs-Housing Balance Program (PDLP-J) Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES1 CITY OF TUSTIN Short-term loans to finance the initial costs of preserving existing affordable housing developments for existing tenants. Short-term loans to finance the initial costs of constructing, converting, preserving or rehabilitating assisted housing developments near transit stations. · Capital assessments to establish a project's condition and potential rehabilitation costs · Purchase option agreements · Professional services such as consultant, architect, engineering and legal · Permit and application fees · Bonding fees; etc. Land purchase, options to buy land, options or deposits to buy or preserve existing publicly assisted rental housing to preserve the affordability of the units, professional services, permit and application fees, bonding, site preparation, related water or sewer development, etc., for affordable housing projects within one-half mile of an existing or planned transit station. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 67 November 2002 Proposition lA Emergency Shelter Program California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) Multiple Rental Housing Programs California Housing Rehabilitation Program Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES CITY OF TUSTIN Proposition lA includes provisions to establish a Downpayment Assistance Program and a Rent Assistance Program using school fees collected from affordable housing projects. Potential buyers or tenants of affordable housing projects are eligible to receive assistance in the form of downpayment assistance or rent subsidies from the State at amounts equivalent to the school fees paid by the affordable housing developers for that project in question. This programs structure and implementation strategy has not yet been determined by the State of California Grants awarded to non- profit organizations for shelter support services Below market rate financing offered to builders and developers of multiple family and elderly housing. Tax-exempt bonds provide below-market mort§a§e money Low interest loans for the rehabilitation of substandard homes owned and occupied by lower- income households. City and non-profits sponsor housing rehabilitation projects. Downpayment Assistance Rental Assistance Support Services · New Construction · Rehabilitation/ Acquisition · Rehabilitation · Repair of Code Violations · Property Improvements CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 68 November 2002 California Housing Finance Agency Home Mortgage Purchase Program Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES1 CITY OF TUSTIN CHFA sells tax-exempt bonds to provide below- market loans to first time homebuyers. Program is operated through participating lenders that originate loans purchased by CHFA California Housing Finance Agency HELP Program Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) County Statewide Communities Program Unsecured loan from CHFA to provide affordable housing opportunities through program partnership with local government entities. Tax credits available to individuals and corporations that invest in low-income rental housing. Tax credits are sold to corporations and people with high tax liability, of which the proceeds are utihzed for housing development The City of Tustin is now a direct member of the program through a Joint Powers Authority and can participate directly. · Homebuyer Assistance · Acquisition · Rehabilitation · Infill · Predevelopment · New construction · Code Enforcement · Rehabilitation/ Acquisition · New Construction · Multi-family Housing · Private Mortgage Revenue Bonds · Acquisition · Rehabilitation CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 69 November 2002 California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES~ CITY OF TUSTIN Allocation of private · activity bond (tax-exempt mortgage revenue bond) to · single-family housing. Low interest loan for multi- family housing rehabilitation or acquisition, or both. Provides limited term housing assistance combined with case management, employment services, childcare and other supportive services to welfare recipients. Grants, loans, and mortgage assistance to low and moderate-income families improving property with their own labor. Loans for pre-development or "seed" money to nonprofit corporations and local governments. Construction, maintenance, use, and occupancy of privately owned and operated employee- housing facilities. Provides unsecured loan for affordable housing projects. Mortgage Credit Certificate Multi-family private mortgage revenue bond · Land lease Payment · New Construction · Pre-development costs · Employee Housing of five or more employees · Infill · Code Enforcement · First Time Homebuyers · Acquisition · Rehabilitation CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 70 November 2002 CDLAC continued Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES1 CITY OF TUSTIN Low interest loans for housing construction for individuals and families with special needs. Low interest and downpayment program for low and moderate-income first time homebuyers. Permanent financing for new construction, acquisition/rehabilitation, and acquisition of multi- family projects Entitlement program that is awarded to the City on a formula basis. The objectives are to fund housing activities and expand economic opportunities. Projects must meet one of three national objectives: benefit low- and moderate-income persons; aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or meet other urgent needs. Federal tax credit for low- and moderate-income homebuyers who have not owned a home in the past three years. Allocation for MCC is provided by the State through the County of Orange. Section 108 Loan Repayments Historic Preservation · Admin. & Planning · Code Enforcement · Public Facilities Improvements · Housing Activities · Economic Development · Rehabilitation · First Time Home Buyer Assistance CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 71 November 2002 HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Program Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES1 CITY OF TUSTIN Grant program for · housing. The intent of this program is to expand the · supply of decent, safe, and sanitary affordable · housing. HOME is · designed as a partnership · program between the federal state, and local governments, non-profit and for-profit housing entities to finance, build/rehabilitate and manage housing for lower- income owners and renters Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Shelter Plus Care Program (S+C) Supportive Housing Grant Annual grant funds are allocated on a formula basis. Funds are intended to assist with the provision of shelter and social services for homeless Funds are made available countywide for supportive social services, affordable housing development, and rental assistance. Supportive housing and services for persons with disabilities-grants for rental assistance offered with supportive services to homeless with disabilities and disabled households. Grants to improve quality of existing shelters and transitional housing. Increase shelters and transitional housing facilities for the homeless Multi-Family Acquisition/Rehab Single-Family Homebuyer Assistance CHDO Assistance Administration Rental Assistance · Homelessness Prevention (acquisition, new construction, rehabilitation, conversion) · Supportive Services · Operating Expenses · Rental Assistance · Supportive Social Services · Administration · Rental Assistance · Acquisition · Rehabilitation · New Construction CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT November 2002 Section 8 Rental Assistance Section 202 Section 811 HOPE McKinney Act Supportive Housing Program (SHP) Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program (SRO-Section 8) Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES1 CITY OF TUSTIN Rental assistance program which provides a subsidy to very low-income families, individuals, seniors and the disabled. Participants pay 30 percent of their adjusted income toward rent. The Orange County Housing Authority pays the balance of rent to property owners, and administers the program. Grants to non-profit developers of supportive housing for the elderly Grants to non-profit developers of supportive housing for person with disabilities, including group homes, independent living facilities and intermediate care facilities Homeownership assistance awarded on a competitive basis requires non-federal matching funds. Grants to develop supportive housing and services and services that will enable homeless people to live as independently as possible. Funds to rehabilitate single-room units within a building of up to 100 units. The provision of supportive services is optional. · Rental Assistance · Acquisition · Rehabilitation · New Construction · Rental Assistance · Support Services · Acquisition · Rehabilitation · New Construction · Rental Assistance · Homeownership of Multi-family units ( OPE 2) · Homeownership of Single-family homes ( OPE 3) · Transitional Housing · Permanent Housing For Homeless With Disabilities · Supportive Services, such as child care, employment assistance and outpatient services for the homeless · Rehabilitation · New Construction CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT November 2002 Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES1 Small Projects Processing (SPP)- (221 (d)(4) and 223 (f) Section 108 Loan HUD Mortgage Insurance for Purchase/Refinance HUD Rehabilitation Loans for Multifamily Projects Disposition of HUD Mulitfamily Housing HUD Single-Family Property Disposition Program CITY OF TUSTIN Mortgage Insurance program for small multi- family new construction or substantial rehabilitation (221)(d)(4) and small multi- family rehabilitation Provides loan guarantee to CDBG entitlement jurisdictions for pursuing large capital improvement or other projects. The jurisdiction must pledge its future CDBG allocations for loan repayment. Maximum loan amount can be up to five times the entitlement jurisdiction's most recent approved annual allocation. Maximum loan term is 20 twenty years. Mortgage Insurance for purchase or refinance of existing multifamily projects. Provides mortgage insurance for improvements, repairs, or additions to multi-family projects. To dispose of multi-family housing owned or financed by HUD that is delinquent, under workout or foreclosed with mechanisms designed to preserve the low- and moderate-income housing stock. Sells HUD-acquired single- family properties to expand homeownership opportunities and strengthen neighborhoods. Up to 10% of HUD-help single-family properties are made available for lease for use in homeless programs. Rent is $1 per year. · Acquisition · Rehabilitation · New Construction · Acquisition · Rehabilitation · Home Buyer Assistance · Homeless Assistance · Public Improvement · Economic Development · Relocation, clearance, site improvements · Acquisition · New Construction · Operation Administration · Energy Conservation · Rehabilitation · Acquisition · New Construction · Operation Administration · Preservation · Acquisition · Rehabilitation CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT November 2002 Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES~ Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) CITY OF TUSTIN Provides grants to develop programs that help veterans recover from homelessness, including establishing transitional housing and supportive services for homeless veterans. · Acquisition · Operation Administration Single Room Occupancy Hotels · Social Services · Transitional Housing · Community Home Buyer Program - Fixed rate Mortgages Community Home Improvement Mortgage Program - Mortgages for both purchase and rehabilitation of a home · Fannie Neighbor - Under served low- income minorities are eligible for low down- payment mortgages for the purchase of single family homes Purchases/secures high loan to value ratio single- family home purchase loan to assist low income families Rehabilitation Mortgages Program insured mortgages for property acquisition and rehabilitation · Homebuyer Assistance · Homebuyer Assistance/Rehab Expand Home Ownership for Minorities · Homebuyer Assistance · Acquisition * Rehabilitation CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT November 2002 Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES CITY OF TUSTIN Assistance to low income minority neighborhoods, including the construction, rehabilitation, bridge and acquisition finance needs of developers of affordable rental and for-sale housing, as well as first time, low and moderate income homebuyers. California Community Reinvestment Act (CR~) Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program California Organized Investment Network (COIN) McAuley Institute Provides funds to qualified affordable housing projects that would not meet customary criteria or existing secondary mortgage market requirements or for which there is no secondary market Provides interest rate at 20 basis point below 11th District costs of funds. Direct subsidies to non- profit and for-profit developers, and public agencies for affordable low-income ownership and rental projects Provides financing for affordable rental or ownership housing. Revolving Loan fund and technical assistance to build or rehabilitate housing. New Construction Rehabilitation Acquisition · New Construction · Expand Home Ownership for Lower Income Persons · Mfordable housing financing · Acquisition · Homeless Shelters · New Construction · Rehabilitation · Self-Help Housing · Single Room Occupancy Hotels · Transitional Housing CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 76 November 2002 Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES~ Mercy Loan Fund Neighborhood Housing Services World/BRIDGE Initiative CITY OF TUSTIN Makes loans to projects in which conventional financing is not available or not affordable and promotes innovative and effective financing arrangements. NHS is a three-way partnership among neighborhood residents, local governments and local businesses. The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation provides direct technical assistance, expendable grants, and capital grants to NHS, which makes loans for rehabilitation. Provides lower-interest construction financing for affordable or mixed- income rental housing or affordable home ownership through a consortium of World Savings/Calpers/Wells Fargo/Bank of America · Acquisition · Group Homes/ Congregate Care · Infrastructure Development · Mobilehome Park Purchase Assistance · New Construction · Preservation · Rehabilitation · Self-Help Housing · Single Room Occupancy Hotels · Transitional Housing · Energy Conservation · Operation Administration · Rehabilitation · New Construction · Rehabihtation · Acquisition CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 77 November 2002 Non Profit Organizations Table H- 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES~ CITY OF TUSTIN According to the State · Department of Housing and Community · Development, three nonprofit agencies in Orange County have expressed interest in purchasing and or managing at risk or replacement units in the Tustin area. Orange County Affordable Housing Clearing, house Non-profit lender consortium Acquisition and rehabilitation Management of multi- family units · Construction Financing · Permanent Financing ~ The Replacement Housing, Housing Rehabilitation, Housing Production and Land Cost Write-Down programs all use the Redevelopment Agency's low- to moderate-income housing set-aside funds to leverage other regional, state, and federal funding sources. These sources include, but are not limited to: Orange County Housing funds, California Housing Finance HELP funds, Department of Housing and Urban Development HOME funds, along with housing revenue bond financing and low income housing tax credits. Such sources help to ensure an adequate level of funding to satisfy the City's affordable housing production requirements. Source: City of Tustin Redevelopment Agency Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strate~/, 2000-2010 In addition to these resources, there are also potential public and private resources that may be available to the City. HOUSING PROGRAMS The following matrix identifies existing and new housing programs to be implemented during the 2000-2005 period and the 1998-2000 transitional period. Table H-22 is a comprehensive summary of the City's quantified objectives set forth for each program for the planning period 1998-2005. The programs are organized according to the goals described previously. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT November 2002 Appendix to Housing Element APPENDIX A REVIEW OF PAST PERFORMANCE CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 97 November 2002 Appendix to Housing Element This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 98 November 2002 Appendix to Housing Element REVIEW OF PAST PERFORMANCE State law establishes a five-year cycle regulating housing element updates. In compliance with the SCAG cycle, the Tustin Housing Element was updated in 1989 and 1994, and found to be in compliance with State law. The City of Tustin processed in 2000 a Housing Element amendment to address the Reuse/Specific Plan for the development of the MCAS and to ensure consistency with the General Plan. In March 2000, the State HCD reviewed and found this update to be in compliance with State law. Review of Past Element 1989-1997 Objectives The SCAG Regional Housing Allocation Model indicated a new construction need in Tustin by 1994 of 2,085 units, of which 390 units were for very low-income households, 488 for low income, 484 for moderate income and 724 upper income. The following discussion highlights the progress, effectiveness and appropriateness of 1989-1997 Housing Element Objectives and the progress achieved during the 1998 to 2000 time period. Table HTM- 35 in the Technical Memorandum provides a summary of the City's overall accomplishments for the years 1989-2000, broken into three time periods. As indicated in Table HTM-35, the City was successful in accomplishing the majority of the objectives established for the past planning period. According to City Staff, the following objectives were met or exceeded: New construction 3,920 units were constructed during the 1989-1994 RHNA period, with an additional 1,771 constructed between 1994-1997, and 3 granny units, for a total of 5,694 units, exceeding the City's objective of 5,000 units for the planning period. Although the overall objective was exceeded, the quantified objective for construction of units affordable to Very Low-income households was not achieved. During 1998-2000, the City has achieved the construction of 1,378 units towards the new planning period. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 99 November 2002 Appendix to Housing Element Mobile homes The objective to maintain existing units was accomplished. Tenant protection An objective of 20 residents was significantly exceeded with 1,700 residents receiving assistance during 1989-1994 and 1,457 residents receiving assistance during 1995-97, for a total of 3,157 residents. An additional 634 tenants received assistance between 1998-2000. Deed restricted affordable units The objective of requiring 100 deed restrictions by 1994 was met. Deed restrictions associated with the assistance of any public or Redevelopment Agency funds were imposed on an additional 231 units during 1995-1997. An additional 207 deed restrictions were established between 1998-2000 towards the new planning period. Enforcement of building codes Code Enforcement activities were vigorous and approached the objective of 1,500 actions over the planning period. Housing rehabilitation Utilizing CDBG and Redevelopment Agency Set-Aside funds, the 80 unit objective was exceeded by 104 units in the 1989-1994 RHNA period, with an additional 201 units rehabilitated under the Owner Occupied, Rental Rehabilitation Loans and Grants, and Multi-family Acquisition/Rehabilitation/Conversion programs between 1995 to 1997. 3 units have been rehabilitated during 1998-2000. Shared housing The Shared Housing program exceeded the objective of 25 cases by 1994 by 35 units, and meeting the objective of 10 cases per year between 1995 through the end of 1997. There have been 25 cases during 1998-2000. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 100 November 2002 Appendix to Housing Element Use of RDA Set-Aside funds, provision of land cost write downs and other financial assistance Between 1989-1997, 182 households were assisted with affordable housing utilizing tax increment financing in a number of projects within the Redevelopment Project areas. One project, Tustin Grove, was assisted by a land cost write-down, although the actual 2.5 M targeted amount for allocation during the planning period was not met. However, an additional 2.1 M was allocated during 1998-2000 for the Warmington Ambrose Lane project. An additional 40 households have been assisted between 1998-2000 towards the achievement of the objective for the new planning period. Retrofits for disabled households The objective for 25 new and retrofitted units to accommodate the disabled was exceeded by 10 units during the 1989 to 1997 time period. An additional 6 units have been created between 1998-2000. Preservation of units at-risk of conversion to market rate 150 of the Orange Gardens units were preserved between 198%1997. Although the objective was to preserve 160 units of assisted housing, the 10 unit shortfall was due to loss of units resulting from Caltrans widening of the Santa Ana (I-5) freeway. Preservation efforts continued with the preservation of 100 units at Tustin Gardens. Homeless and transitional shelter facilities Studies for assisting homeless providers have been completed. Funding has been allocated to implement the plans with two separate programs at the MCAS-Tustin. Rehabilitation of housing in Cultural Resources District The number of rehabilitated units exceeded the 25 unit o~ective by 1994. An additional 20 units were rehabilitated between 1995-98, bringing the total achieved to 49 units. Nine units were rehabilitated towards the objective of 20 units in the new planning period. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT lOl November 2002 Appendix to Housing Element Zoning studies A density bonus ordinance was adopted in 1999, and mixed use zoning adopted in the Old Town district. Waiver of fees for projects with affordable rates Fees were waived for 25 projects between 1989-1997. One project has been processed with reduced fees between 1998-2000. Section 8 vouchers Although the number of Section 8 vouchers utilized in the City was not available for the 1989-1994 period, 778 vouchers were implemented by the end of the 1989-1997 period. This number assumes that the number of vouchers applied in the City increased by at least 10 units over the total planning period. An additional 632 vouchers were initiated between 1998-2000 towards the objective of 1,500 vouchers by 2005. The following objectives were not met: Use of CDBG funds The amount of CDBG funds received during the 1989-1994 planning period failed to meet the targeted amount by $464,000. Annual allocations between 1994-2000 have also failed to meet the objective for the new planning period. However, this shortfall was bridged with the allocation of redevelopment funds. Second units 10 units were targeted for the 1989-1994 RHNA period. The targeted number fell short by 8 units, as 2 units were constructed. A third unit was constructed in the 1995-97 time period. Despite incentives provided by the City, this type of housing unit has proven not to be a popular method of supplying hoUsing. In addition, it is difficult for the City to monitor the affordability of such units as the units are on private property and there is no way to guarantee whether these units are for relatives or are used as rentals. The costs of construction and the economic downturn of the early 1990's may have also deterred property owners from participating. Although a CUP is CITY OF TUtSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 102 November 2002 Appendix to Housing Element required to implement, the zoning regulations are flexible. The City will continue to encourage such projects and attempt to ensure maintenance of affordable units through CC&Rs that guarantee affordability of the unit in perpetuity. One unit has been processed between 1998-2000. Monitor the implementation of the affordable housing program adopted as a part of the East Tustin Specific Plan The objectives for 100 very low and 500 low income units has not been achieved. Three income-restricted projects with a total of 174 units, of which 52 are for very low-income households and 122 are for low-income households were developed through 1994. In addition, a number of market-rate apartment units were built that the City has not tracked as to income category. Based on current market statistics, many of those are also assumed to be within the lower- income categories. First time homebuyers The objective for providing homebuyers assistance has been met, but not at levels anticipated. While no households were assisted during the 198%1997 time period, the City has made first time homebuyers assistance a priority in their Consolidated Plan and Redevelopment Area Five Year Plan through the movement of funds supporting the Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. Through the implementation of the Downpayment Assistance Program, assistance was made to 8 households between 1998-2000. In addition, 48 Mortgage Credit Certificates were issued through the County of Orange between 1997 and 2000. Bond financed projects The studies for analysis of available programs were completed within the planning period. Three projects were financed using this method. Due in part to the downturn in the housing market in the early 1990s, the Hampton Square Apartments were the only project financed during the planning period by Mortgage Revenue Bonds in October 1996. The project contains a total of 150 low-income restricted units. In addition, the Orange Gardens and Flanders Pointe projects were financed between 1998 and 2000. The City will seek CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 103 November 2002 Appendix to Housing Element opportunities to implement this form of financing for the construction of new housing with affordability components. The City has also been utilizing other funding resources for assisting developers and non-profits in the generation of housing with affordable units. Recycling of underutilized single-family units to multi-family units Only one unit was developed through the recycling of single-family units in R-3 zones to multi-family units. There appeared to be a lack of interest in the community to recycle land to higher densities, as vacant land was still available, and the economic status in California was depressed during a large portion of the planning period. As available vacant land diminishes, this will become a more attractive option to property owners. The City should continue to promote lot consolidation and recycling potential. It is clear that the City was successful in implementing a number of programs. However, the greatest shortfall in reaching objectives occurred in the provision of opportunities for recycling of underutilized land to higher residential densities. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 104 November 2002 Appendix to Housing Element APPENDIX B AFFORDABILITY GAP ANALYSIS cITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 105 November 2002 Appendix to Housing Element This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 106 November 2002 Appendix to Housing Element APPENDIX C PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAILING LIST CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 109 November 2002 Appendix to Housing Element This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 110 November 2002 APPENDIX C PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MAILING LIST Appendix to Housing Element Kathleen Maloney Mercy Charities Housing 500 S. Main Street, #110 Orange, CA 92868 Maria I. Marquez Interim Division Manager Adult Mental Health Services 405 West Fifth Street, Suite 550 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Maury Ruano Mercy Housing 500 S. Main Street #110 Orange, CA 92868 Randy Gibeaut Community Housing Resources 1411 North Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92706 Nia Tang City of Garden Grove 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92842 Lisa Hill CDFI Clearing House 23861 E1 Toro Road #401 Lake Forest, CA 92630 949-859-3600 (W) 714-259-1236 (H) Lisa Ramirez 14901 Newport Avenue #143 Tustin, CA 92780 714-957-4647 Lynne Fishel, CEO BIA Orange County Chapter 9 Executive Circle, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 Bart G. Hess Affordable Home Owners Alliance 2 Park. Plaza, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614-5904 (949) 476-2242 ext. 219 David Levy OC Fair Housing Council 201 S. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92701 Jim Palmer, President Orange County Rescue Mission 1421 Edinger Avenue, Suite B Tustin, CA 92780 714-258 ~60 Pubhc Law Center 600 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 Karen Roper Homeless Issues Coordinator County of Orange 10 Civic Center Plaza, 3ra Floor Santa Ana, CA 92701 Paula Burrier-Lund, Director Orange County Housing/Community Development Dept. 1770 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92706 Appendix to Housing Element Captain Lee Lescano The Salvation Army 10200 Pioneer Road Tustin, CA 92780 714-832-7100 Maya Dunne, Asst. Vice President SJHS Foundation & Community Outreach 500 S. Main St., Suite 1000 Orange, CA 92868 Dara Kovel, Associate Director Mercy Charities Housing California 500 S. Main St., Suite 110 Orange, CA 92868 Cynthia Campbell Human Options, Inc. (DOVE Housing) P.O. Box 9376 Newport Beach, CA 92658 714-435-9992 Margie Wakeham Families Forward P.O. 53093 · Irvine, CA 92619 94%552-2727 Joan B. Margol Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter 635 Vista Bonita Newport Beach, CA 92660 94%759-7551 Sheri Barrios, Executive Director Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter 1963 Wallace Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 94%631-7213 November 2002 CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT ' 112 Veteran's Service Dept. 4220 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Dayle McIntosh Center 150 W. Cerritos, Bldg. 4 Anaheim, CA 92805 Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter 1963 Wallace Street, Apt. A Costa Mesa, CA 92627 YMCA Community Counseling Services 2 Executive Circle, Suite 280 Irvine, CA 92714 Assistance League of Tustin P.O. Box 86 Tustin, CA 92780 Families First 12012 Magnolia Street Garden Grove, CA 92641-3346 Tustin Area Historical Society & Museum 395 E1 Camino Real Tustin, CA 92780 Legal Aid Society of Orange County 902 N. Main Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Community Services Program 16842 Von Karman, Suite 425 Irvine, CA 92714 Probation Community Action Assoc. 1111 N. Main Street, #176 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Mardan Center of Educational Therapy 1 Osborn Irvine, CA 92604 Susan Alexander New Horizons 13821 Newport Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 Helen Anderson Hunger Coalitions 14452 Wildeve Lane Tustin, CA 92780 Allen Baldwin OC Community Housing Corp. 1833 E. 17th Street, Suite 207 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Joan Basile Mary's Shelter 17671 Anglin Lane Tustin, CA 92780 Barbara Benson Tustin Area Council for Fine Arts P.O. Box 145 Tustin, CA 92781 Doug Bistry O.C. Affordable Housing 23861 E1 Toro Road, Suite 207 Lake Forest, CA 92640-4733 Helen Brown Civic Center Barrio 1665 E. 4th Street, #210 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Vanessa Brunet Learning for Life 3590 Harbor Gateway North Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Jerry Caminiti Disability Awareness Coalition 3773 University Drive, #118 Irvine, CA 92612 Patrick Carroll Life Share 11421 Garden Grove Boulevard Garden Grove, CA 92643 Shirley Cohen Feedback Foundation, Inc. 1200 N. Knollwood Circle Anaheim, CA 92801 Donna Core Meals on Wheels 1001 N. Tustin Santa Ana, CA 92707 Julie Damon The Seed Institute 6271 Tarssa Lane Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Pat Davis Big Brothers & Sisters of OC 14131 Yorba Street Tustin, CA 92780 John Drew Family Solutions 203 N. Golden Circle Drive, #101 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Jennifer Feldstein Women Helping Women 425 E. 18th Street #14 Costa Mesa, CA 92627-3161 John Von Glahn Family Service Association 18001 Cowan, # c-d Irvine, CA 92714-6801 Melinda Guinaldo Assessment & Treatment Services Center 1981 Orchard Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 Suzanne Guthrie Four H Clubs of Orange County 1045 Arlington drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Mary Hadley Info Line Orange County 2081 Business Center Drive, suite 130 Irvine, CA 92715 Larry Haynes Mercy House Transitional Living Cfr. P.O. Box 1905 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Colin Henderson Friendship Shelter, Inc. P.O. Box 4252 Laguna Beach, CA 92652 Elmer Hothus Christian Temporary Housing Facility 704 N. Glassell Street Orange, CA 92867 Warren Johnson Salvation Army 10200 Pioneer Road Tustin, CA 92780 Judy Johnson ESA/Corporate Office 23861 E1 Toro Road, Suite 207 Lake Forest, CA 92640-4733 Becky Johnson Alliance for the Mentally Ill 621 S. "B" Street, Suite B Tustin, CA 92780 Elizabeth Jones C.O.P.E.S. 2025 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92706 JoAnn Ruden Tustin Public School Foundation 17411 Irvine Boulevard, #I Tustin, CA 92780 Susan Knopick Children's Bureau of So. Calif. 50 S. Anaheim Boulevard Ananheim, CA 92805 Robyn Class Orange Children & Parents Together 3550 E. Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92869 Doris La Magna The Villa Center, Inc. 910 North French Santa Ana, CA 92701 Lila Lieberthal Jamboree Housing Corp. 2081 Business Center Drive Irvine, CA 92714 Elaine Lintner OCSPCA-Paws 5660 Avenida Antigua Yorba Linda, CA 92687 Jim Lynch Tustin Chamber of Commerce 399 E1 Camino Real Tustin, CA 92780 Theresa Marji Legal Aid of Orange County 902 N. Main Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Wendy Marohnic Human Options Second Step P.O. Box 9445 South Laguna, CA 92677 Brenda Martin Laurel House 13722 Fairmont Way Tustin, CA 92780 Rowana McCoy Easter Seal Society, Inc. 1661 N. Raymond Ave., Suite 100 Anaheim, CA 92801 Sherry McCulley Legal Aid Society of Orange County 902 N. Main Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Pamela McGovern OC Council of Aging 18552 McArthur Boulevard, #425 Irvine, CA 92715 Jim Miller Shelter for the Homeless 15161Jackson Street Midway City, CA 92655-1432 Roger Moore Lutheran Social Srvc. of Southern Calif. 704 N. Glassell Street Orange, CA 92867 Beverly Nestande Olive Crest Homes 2130 E. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Cliff Polston Boys & Girls Club of Tustin 580 W. Sixth Street Tustin, CA 92780 David Quezada Fair Housing Council of O.C. 1666 N. Main Street, Suite 500 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Barbara Resnick Western Dev. for Affordable Housing 112 E. Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92867 Joyce Riley Learning Disabilities of Souther Calif. P.O. Box 25772 Santa Ana, CA 92799 Jon Schlemmer St. Vincent de Paul Center for Reconciliation 2525 N. Grand Avenue, #N Santa Ana, CA 92703 Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force 1833 E. 17th Street Santa Ana, CA 92705-8629 Mary Atkinson Smith The Blind Children's Learning Center 18542-B Vanderlip Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705 Susan Stokes Turning Point Center for Families 2101 E. 4th Street, #150-B Santa Ana, CA 92705-3814 Donald Taylor Veteran Charities of Orange County 201 S. Sullivan Street Santa Ana, CA 92704 Sister Marie Therese Lestonnac Free Clinic 1215 E. Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92869 Lynne Tsuda Central Orange County YWCA 146 North Grand Street Orange, CA 92866 Jean Wegener Serving People in Need 2900 Bristol St., Suite H-106 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Clyde Weinman Irvine Temporary Housing 6427 Oak Canyon Irvine, CA 92620 Karen Weisenberger Consumer Credit Counseling Service P.O. Box 11330 Santa Ana, CA 92711 Tim Wells Episcopal Service Alliance 1872 Drew Way Orange, CA 92869 Randy Wenz Orange County Council 3590 Harbor GateWay North Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Thomas Whaling Shelter for the Homeless 24621 Ridgewood Circle Lake Forest, CA 92630 Kimberlee White The Eli Home, Inc. 3128 E. Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92869 Carol Anne Williams Interval House P.O. Box 3356 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Bob Winandy Pilgrimage Family Therapy 27405 Puerta Real Suite 180 Mission Viejo, CA 92691-6314 This page intentionally left blank. Appendix to Housing Element APPENDIX D REFERENCES Appendix to Housing Element This page intentionally left blank. Appendix to Housing Element REFERENCES A. Documents 1. 1990 Census Report. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2. California State Department of Finance, 1990, 1999. o Demographic Profile and Survey of Homeless Persons Seeking Services in Orange County. The Research Committee of the Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force, 1999. 4. Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 1999. 5. City of Tustin, Zoning Ordinance. 6. City of Tustin, General Plan, as amended January 16, 2001. 7. Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Old Town Market Analysis, October 16, 1991. . Second Five-Year Implementation Plan for The Town Center and South Central Redevelopment Project Areas (FY 2000-01 to 2004-2005), Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency, January 2000. 9. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy for Fiscal Years 2000-2001 to 2009-2010, Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency, February, 2000. 10. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-Tustin (Program EIS/EIR for MCAS-Tustin), January 16, 2001. 11. City Council Staff Report, January 16, 2001. 12. Response to Comments, Final Volume 2 and 3 of Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-Tustin. 13. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan, October 1996 and September 1998 Amendments. 14. Masterplan Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, DON 1989. 15. State of California, Department of HCD, Web-site. B. Persons and Organizations o Mary Ann Barajas, Manager Christian Temporary Shelter, Tustin (714) 771-2969 . Barbara Bishop, Receptionist Aldergates (714) 544-3653 o Kathy Novak The Sheepfold Shelter, Tustin (714) 669-9569 4. Susan Oakson, Executive Director Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force , Christine A. Shingleton, Assistant City Manager Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency (714) 573-3107 . Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Community Development Department, Tustin (714) 573-3031 . Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney 701 S. Parker Street, Suite 8000 Orange, CA 92868-4760 , Jim Draughon, Redevelopment Program Manager Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency (714) 573-3121 Appendix to Housing Element , Justina Willk°m, Associate Planner Community Development Department, Tustin (714) 573-3174 10. Grace Schuth, Receptionist Tustin Presbyterian Church (714) 544-7070 11. Officer G. Vallevienie Tustin Police Department (714) 573-3200 12. Jean Williams, Receptionist St. Cecilia's Church (714) 544-3131 Appendix to Housing Element Housing Element TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM November 2002 This page intentionally left blank. Section TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION STATE LAW AND GENERAL PLAN GUIDELINES SOURCES OF INFORMATION SUMMARY OF HOUSING ISSUES, NEEDS, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CONSTRAINTS Page HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT TRENDS HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS ASSISTED HOUSING PRESERVATION ANALYSIS CONSTRAINTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT, IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF HOUSING GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS MARKET CONSTRAINTS ENERGY CONSERVATION 9 15 3O 4O 53 53 65 70 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE 1989 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES REVIEW OF PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCES 72 72 73 102 CITY OF TUSTIN - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 LIST OF TABLES Table HTM-1 Population Growth 1980-1999 City of Tustin, Surrounding Jurisdictions and Orange County Table HTM-la Population Projections Table HTM-2 Age Trends 1990 - 1997 Table HTM-3 Race and Ethnicity: 1980, 1990, 1997 Table HTM4 Employment by Occupation 1990 Table HTM-5 Employment by Industry 1990 Table HTM-6 Household Type: 1980 - 1999 Table HTM-7 Household Size 1980 Through 1999 Table HTM-8 Households in Overcrowded Conditions 1999 Table HTM-9 Median Household Income: Tustin and Surrounding Areas 1990 Table HTM-10 Estimated Household Income Distribution: 1990 and 1999 Table HTM-11 Estimated Household Income Distribution by Age of Head of Household 1999 Table HTM-12 Households Overpaying for Shelter 1999 City of Tustin Table HTM-13 Disability Classification Table HTM-14 Table HTM-15 Table HTM-16 Table HTM-17 Table HTM-18 Table HTM-19 Table HTM-20 Table HTM-21 Table HTM-22 Table HTM-23 Table HTM-24 Table HTM-25 Household Size Distribution 1999 City of Tustin Homeless Sub-Population Groups 1999 Orange County Emergency Shelter/Transitional Housing Facilities 1999 Housing Growth Trends 1980 - 1999 Tustin and Surrounding Areas Tustin Residential Unit Mix 1990 - 1999 Vacancy rates 1999 Tenure 1990 and 1999 Age of Housing Stock Distribution of Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Value 1999 Resale Price of Homes and Condominiums Tustin and Neighboring Jurisdictions December, 1999 Average Rental Rates 2000 Maximum Rent and Purchase Price by Income Category 1999 Page 10 11 11 13 14 15 16 16 18 20 20 21 23 24 25 26 29 30 31 31 32 33 33 35 37 37 CITY OF TUSTIN- TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Table HTM-26 2000-2005 Housing Needs Table HTM-27 At Risk For Conversion in 2000-2005 Table HTM-28 Assisted Housing Inventory Table HTM-29 Cost of Replacing and Acquisition/Rehabilitation of Assisted Units Table HTM-30 Fair Market Value - Orange County Table HTM-31 Cost of Providing Rental Subsidy for Very Low Income Households Table HTM-32 General Plan Residential Land Use Categories Table HTM-33 Summary of Residential Zoning Regulations City of Tustin Table HTM-34 Comparative Development Fee Summary ~ Table HTM-35 Summary Table Effectiveness of Housing Element Programs: 1989-2000 Table HTM-36 Effectiveness of Housing Element Programs 1989 - 2000 Table HTM 37 Progress Towards objectives 1989 - 2000 39 43 43 48 49 50 54 57 63 73 74 94 CITY OF TUSTIN - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM iii HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 INTRODUCTION This memorandum is a reference document intended to provide background data that will serve as a partial basis for policies and programs in the Housing Element. In accordance with State law a significant amount of data is required in this memorandum. Where possible, the data has been summarized in graphic form (table, bar charts, and pie charts) for easy reference. The reader is urged to use the table of contents at the front of this document as a guide. Once the Housing Element has been completed, the Technical Memorandum will be appended to it. State law largely determines the content of this Technical Memorandum. Five sections follow the introduction. The Summary of Housing Issues, Conditions, Opportunities and Constraints provides an overview of the key issues facing the City, which are addressed by the Goals, policies and programs of the Housing Element. The Housing Needs Assessment section addresses housing needs. More specifically, it discusses how the population has grown and changed, how households are changing (i.e., size, composition), and how the housing supply itself is changing. This section also analyzes the potential loss of assisted lower income housing units in the City. The third section addresses governmental and non-governmental constraints, such as market condition, and natural environment, to housing development. The fourth section addresses energy conservation. Finally, the fifth section summarizes the housing issues, opportunities, and constraints that have emerged through background research and public meetings and which must be addressed in the Housing Element. STATE LAW AND GENERAL PLAN GUIDELINES The State of California provides very specific requirements and guidelines for preparing Housing Elements. This section describes those requirements and explains the relationship between this element and the rest of the General Plan. Legislative Requirements The State of California requires that each jurisdiction prepare and adopt a Housing Element. The State Requirements for Housing Elements are far stricter and more detailed than for any other General Plan Element. CITY OF TUSTIN - TECHNICAL MEMONAND UM HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 State Planning law requires local governments to review their housing elements as frequently as appropriate and to revise the elements as appropriate, not less than every five years. The third revision date for jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is December 31, 2000. The planning period for the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) as prepared by SCAG, is from January 1998 to June 2005, a seven and one-half year period. The implementation period covered by this element is July 2000 through June 2005. By 2003, the City, along with other jurisdictions in the SCAG region, again will begin preparation for a revision of the housing element to cover the period from 2005-2010. Organization of the Housing Element Under the provisions of Section 65583 of the Government Code, the Housing Element shall generally consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The Housing Element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, and mobile homes, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. More specifically, the Housing Element must meet the requirements outlined below. A. An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include the following: . Analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. These existing and projected needs shall include the locality's share of the regional housing needs in accordance with Section 65584. , Analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. 3. An inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for CITY OF TUSTIN - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 B. Co . , . redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. Analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. Analysis of potential and actual non-governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction. Analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the handicapped, elderly, large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. 7. Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. A statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. It is recognized that the total housing needs identified pursuant to Section 65583(a) may exceed available resources and the community's ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan requirements. Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the identified existing housing needs, but should establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. A program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake in order to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use development controls, provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. In order to CITY OF TUSTIN - TF_,CHNICAL MBMORAND UM HOUSING F. LBMBNT NO VBMBE, R 2002 make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall do all of the following: . Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, emergency shelters and transitional housing in order to meet the community's housing goals. 2. Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households. o Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. 4. Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock. . Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, or color. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals. The local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort. In addition, an amendment to housing element law (Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989) requires all housing elements to include additional need analyses and programs to address the potential conversion of all Federal, State and locally assisted housing developments that are eligible to convert to market rate use during the next ten-year period. Such units are considered to be "at risk" of being lost as part of the affordable housing stock. CITY OF TUSTIN- TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements The preparation of the City's Housing Element must conform t° Section 65580 of the California Government Code. The Legislature has established a policy that the availability of housing in a suitable environment is of vital statewide importance, and a priority of the highest order. State policy requires local governments to address the housing needs of all economic segments, while considering the economic, environmental and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the General Plan. While a city must consider housing needs for all economic segments, it must also maintain internal consistency among the various elements of the General Plan. Neither the Housing Element nor any other element may supersede any other required element of the Tustin General Plan. The Housing Element relates to other elements in a variety of ways. The Land Use Element directly relates to the Housing Element by designating areas of the City in which a variety of residential types and densities may exist. The Housing Element's relationship to the Conservation, Open Space, and Recreation Element is conditioned by the need to serve a growing population's recreational needs, especially in the areas of the City with the highest density. The Circulation Element attempts to provide an efficient and well- balanced circulation system. This system must be designed to accommodate allowed land uses, including residential uses, and the intensity of allowable uses must not exceed the ultimate capacity of the circulation system. The Safety Element relates to the Housing Element by designating areas that are deemed unsafe for development, such as the Alquist- Priolo Zones and floodplains. Similar to the Safety Element, the Noise Element relates to the Housing Element by addressing a health related issue area. Techniques for reducing noise often involve buffers between land uses to reduce noise. The Growth Management Element overlaps the issues raised in the Housing Element in its efforts to ensure that the planning, CITY OF TUSTIN- TECHNICAL MEMO_RAND UM 5 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 management, and implementation of traffic improvements and public facilities are adequate to meet the current and projected needs of Orange County. SOURCES OF INFORMATION A variety of sources were used to prepare this Technical Memorandum. The most recent source of population and housing counts is the State Department of Finance (DOF) population and housing estimates for January 1999. The population, household and employment statistics are taken from the 1990 Census. More current estimates of population characteristics are provided by the Center for Demographic Research at California State University, Fullerton. In the absence of more recent data, extrapolations were made based upon 1990 Census data. The 1999 SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment provided information regarding existing needs and projections regarding future housing needs. Data regarding housing costs have been obtained from local newspapers, local developers, and financial institutions; Other data sources are listed in the Reference section of this document. CITY OF TUSTIN- TECHNICAL MEMO_RAND UM HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 SUMMARY OF HOUSING ISSUES, NEEDS, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CONSTRAINTS The following issues, needs, opportunities, and constraints have been identified in Tustin. Tenure. The City contains disproportionately large amounts of multi-family housing units when compared to nearby jurisdictions and the County overall. Historic Resources. Historic homes that add character and charm to the City may be in need of ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation. Home Ownership Affordability Gap. Ownership housing costs are increasingly beyond the reach of the City's lower- and moderate-income households. Housing Condition. Many owner- and renter-occupied units in the City need rehabilitation, including minor and major repairs. Landlords and owners of these units may need financial assistance in order to make necessary repairs. Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate. By State law, the City must document and develop programs to address affordable housing units in the City that are at risk of converting to market rate housing between 2000-2010. For the 1998-2005 planning period, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment indicates that there is a need to provide 860 housing units affordable to lower income households in the City. Large Households. The Hispanic population in Tustin has increased from about 21 percent of the population in 1990 to about 24 percent in 1997. Since Hispanic families tend to be larger, a potential need exists for larger housing units to accommodate these families. Overcrowding. The average household size in the City increased from 2.67 in 1990 to 2.92 in 1999. Also, overcrowding has increased significantly since 1990 in both owner- and renter-occupied units. CITY OF TUSTIN- TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Rental Affordability Gap. Based upon a review of rental units advertised in the Classified section of the local newspapers, it is difficult to find apartments in the City with more than two bedrooms, and those that are available are beyond the price range of low-income households. Therefore, large families with low incomes (less than $26,000) would have difficulty finding affordable housing in Tustin. Housing Problems. According to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, in 1999 the City had 5,494 lower income households overpaying (paying more than 30% of their income) for housing. This represented about 24 percent of the City's households. Elderly. As the City's population ages, the number of elderly persons will increase. This underscores an increasing need to address the special housing needs of the elderly. Age of Housing Stock. Even though the City's housing stock is relatively young and in good condition, in year 2000, over 64 percent of the City's housing stock was over 30 years old-the age at which housing typically begins to require major repairs. CITY OF TUSTIN- TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT Since the 1960s, the City's population has soared from about 2,000 persons to 67,153. Thus, the vast majority of the City's housing stock is less than 40 years old. Unlike most of Orange County, where half of the housing stock consists of single- family detached homes, nearly two-thirds of Tustin's housing stock is multi-family or single-family attached (i.e., condomim'ums/townhouses). Tustin also has a proportionately higher percentage of renters compared to Orange County as a whole. During the last decade, the City's population has been impacted by many of the same trends observed regionally: a substantial increase in minority populations, especially Latinos; an increase in the average size of households; and, a surge in housing costs. As the City continues to grow and change, its housing policies must be re-examined in light of these changes. This chapter examines the important demographic changes that have occurred in the City since 1990 that affect housing needs. The chapter includes four main sections: population/employment trends, household characteristics, housing characteristics, and assisted housing preservation. The Population/Employment Trends section analyzes how the population has grown and explores resident employment patterns. The Household Characteristics section looks at changes in household size and composition, examines income and overcrowding, and evaluates housing affordability and special housing needs groups. The Housing Stock Characteristics section examines changes in the housing stock, particularly the number of units, condition, and type. The fourth section concerning assisted housing preservation responds to State legislation that requires local jurisdictions to prepare an inventory and implement programs to promote the preservation and/or replacement of government-assisted lower- income housing. POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT TRENDS This section examines population growth, age characteristics, racial/ethnic composition, and employment characteristics of Tustin's population. CITY OF TUSTIN- TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Population Growth As shown in Table HTM-1, between 1990 and 1999 the City's population grew from 50,689 to 67,153, an increase of 32.5%. The City of Tustin's growth rate between 1990 and 1999 was faster than the countywide growth rate and surrounding cities. Recent projections cited in the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy 2000-2010, indicate that Tustin's population will increase by an annual rate of 1.5% during the next five years, bringing the total population to 72,735. Table HTM-1 compares the City's growth rate between 1980 and 1999 with other Orange County cities and the County as a whole. A large percentage of Tustin's population growth can be attributed to annexations that have occurred since 1980. The remainder can be attributed to a variety of other factors, including shifts in family structures from smaller to larger families, redevelopment of existing developed areas, inffll development, and new residential construction in East Tustin. Substantial population and housing growth will continue during this planning period with the conversion of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin to civilian uses. TABLE HTM-1 POPULATION GROWTH 1980-1999 CITY OF TUSTIN, SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS AND ORANGE COUNTY % Growth Jurisdiction 1980 x 1990 2 1999 3 1980-90 1990-99 Tustin 36,119 a 50,689 67,153 40.3% 32.5% Anaheim 219,311 266,406 307,749 21.5% 15.5% Garden Grove A23,307 143,050 157,276 16.0% 9.9% Irvine 62,134 110,330 137,211 77.6% 24.3% Santa Ana 203,713 296,742 316,467 45.7% 6.6% Orange Count~ 1,932,709 2,410,556 2,788,767 24.7% 15.7% 1980 U.S. Census 1990 U.S. Census, Deloartment of Finance Estimates, Januav/1999 Population projections are shown in Table HTM-la. According to OCP-96 Modified data, the population in the City of Tustin is CITY OF TUSTIN - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 10 HOUSING ELEMENT NO VEMBER 2 002 expected to increase by approximately 12 percent to 74,964 persons by the year 2020. Table HTM- la Population Projection 2000 2005 2010 2020 Percent Change (2000-2020) Tustin 66,740 72,735 73,791 74,964 12% Source: OP-96 Modified Age Characteristics Table HTM-2 shows the proportions of the City's population represented by age groups in 1990 and 2000. The table shows that the proportions of the population in each age group have remained fairly constant over time. TABLE HTM-2 AGE TRENDS 1990 - 2000 CITY OF TUSTIN Age Group 1990 % Total 2000 % Total 04 4,464 8.8% 5,815 8.6% 5-14 5,916 11.7% 9,916 14.7% 15-24 9,127 18.0% 8,685 12.8 % 25-34 12,254 24.2% 13,798 20.4% 35-54 11,898 23.5% 19,710 29.2% 55-64 3,187 6.3% 4,776 7.1% 65-74 2,292 4.5% 2,745 4.1% 75+ 1,551 3.1% 2,059 3.1% Total 50,689 100.0% 67,504 100.0% Sources: U.S Bureau of Census, 2000; Center for Demographic Research (CDR), 2001. Race and Ethnicity The City's racial and ethnic composition has changed significantly since 1980. As shown in Table HTM-3, the Hispanic population has CITY OF TUSTIN- TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 11 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 increased from about 9% of the total population in 1980 to about 34% in 2000. Asian/Pacific Islanders and Blacks now make up about 15.1% and 2.6% of the population, respectively. These shifts in racial and ethnic composition may have important implications in terms of household characteristics and income. For example, Hispanic households are typically larger than other households; therefore, an increase in the number of Hispanic households may indicate a need for larger housing units. Also, to the extent that minority populations tend to have lower incomes than their Caucasian counterparts, there may be a greater need for affordable housing for these groups. CITY OF TUSTIN- TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 12 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 TABLE HTM-3 RACE AND ETHNICITY: 1980, 1990, 2000 CITY OF TUSTIN 1980 1 1990 2 2000 3 % % % Race and Ethnicity Population Total Population Total Population Total s White 31,654 87.6% 37,127 73.2% 30,264 44.8% Black 957 2.6% 2,895 5.7% 1,785 2.6% American Indian 237 0.7% 274 0.5% N/A N/A Asian/Pacific Islander 1,683 4.7% 5,260 10.4% 10,194 15.1% Other 1,588 4.4% 5,133 10.1% 2,151 3.2% Hispanic 4 (3,085) (8.5%) (10,508) (20.7%) 23,110 34.2% Total 36,119 100% 50,689 100% 67,504 100% 1 1980 Census 2 1990 Census 3 2000 Census 4 The Census contains a separate question related to whether the householder was of Spanish/Hispanic "origin". Origin is defined as the ancestry, nationality group, lineage, or country in which the person's ancestors were born prior to their arrival to the United States. Persons of Spanish origin could be of any of the five racial categories. 5 Center for Demographic Research, 2000. CDR reported the Hispanic population for 1998 as a distinct ethnic group. It also reported Asian and Pacific Islander as one group, and included American Indian within "Other" cate~or7. Employment According to 1990 Census data, the City of Tustin had 31,394 residents in the labor force, of which 27,274 were in the labor market. Of these, 81% were private wages and salary workers. Table HTM-4 shows the number of employees by occupation. The largest occupational category was administrative support occupations, in which a total of 5,533 were employed. The second largest was the executive, administrative, and managerial occupations. The 1990 Census also showed that 2,714 persons were in the Armed Forces. Those involved with farming, forestry and fishing occupations accounted for only 0.9%. CITY OF TUSTIN - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 13 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 TABLE HTM-4 EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATION 1990 CITY OF TUSTIN Occupational Category Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations Professional Specialty occupations Technicians and related support occupations Sales occupations Administrative support occupations, including clerical Private household occupations Protective service occupations Service occupations, except protective and household Farming, forestry, and fishing occupations Precision production, craft, and repair occupations Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors Transportation and material moving occupations Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers Total Number 4,679 3,583 996 3,506 5,533 133 371 2,514 239 2,850 1,473 27,274 17.2% 13.1% 3.7% 12.9% 20.3% 0.5% 1.4% 9.2% 0.9% 10.4% 5.4% 2.5% 676 721 2.6% 100.0% Source: 1990 Census In terms of industry, the retail and manufacturing sectors employed the largest number of persons with 4,441 (16.3%) and 4,008 (14.7%) employees, respectively. Table HTM-5 is a summary of the number of employees by industry. Due to its favorable location, demographics, and business environment, Tustin is home to several best known employers. Appendix C lists major employers in the City of Tustin. The City's top ten employers include: Steelcase Inc., Ricoh Electronics, Inc., Sun Health Care Group, Texas Instruments, Silicon Systems, MacPherson Enterprises, Pargain Technology, Cherokee International, Toshiba America Medical Systems, and Crazy Shirts. CITY OF TUSTIN- TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 14 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 TABLE HTM-5 EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY 1990 CITY OF TUSTIN Industry Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries Mining Construction Manufacturing, non-durable goods Manufacturing, durable goods Transportation Communications and other public utilities Wholesale trade Retail trade Finance, insurance, and real estate Business and repair services Personal services Entertainment and recreation services Health services Educational services Other professional and related services Public administration Total Source: 1990 Census Number 267 1.0% 26 .1% 1,631 6.0% 1,446 5.3% 4,008 14.7% 1,023 3.8% 455 1.7% 1,531 5.6% 4,441 16.3% 3,026 11.1% 1,694 6.2% 949 3.5% 385 1.4% 1,764 1,329 2,268 1,031 27,274 6.5% 4.9% 8.3% 3.8% 100.0% HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS This section addresses household composition, size, overcrowding, income, affordability, and special needs groups. Definitions The Census Bureau uses several terms with respect to housing which are important to understand. A housing unit is defined as a house, apartment, mobile home or trailer, group of rooms, or single room occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. A household is an occupied housing unit. Households are further broken down into family households and non-family households. A family household is a household shared by two or more persons related by birth, marriage or adoption. A non-family household is one consisting of a single individual or unrelated persons living together. CITY OF TUSTIN- TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 15 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Household Composition According to the U.S. Census, the City of Tustin contained 18,332 households in 1990. California Department of Finance estimates shows that the number of households increased to 22,755 in 1999, representing an increase of approximately 24 %. TABLE HTM-6 HOUSEHOLD TYPE: 1980 - 1999 CITY OF TUSTIN 1980 1 1990 l 19993 Household No. of % of No. of % of No. of % of Type Households Total Households Total Households Total Family 8,840 61.7% 12,317 67.2% 15,291 67.2% Non-Family 5,477 38.3% 6,015 32.8% 7,464 32.8% Total 14,317 100% 18,332 100% 22,755 100% 1 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census. 2 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census 3 Total populations based on Department of Finance estimates, November 1999; percentages for household ~[0e based on 1990 Census. Table HTM-6 shows that 12,317, or about 67%, of the City's households were classified as family households in 1990. The percentage of households remained the same in 1999. Moreover, as shown in Table HTM-7, the average household size in Tustin has increased from 2.77 persons per household in 1990 to an estimated 2.92 persons per household in 1999. This increase may be attributed to a variety of factors, including: more doubling-up, or sharing, of units in order to defray increased housing costs and an increase in the supply of larger units, especially new units in East Tustin. TABLE HTM-7 HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1980 THROUGH 1999 CITY OF TUSTIN Jurisdiction 1980 1 1990 2 1999 3 Tustin 2.43 2.77 2.92 Orange County 2.78 2.87 3.04 CITY OF TUSTIN- TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 16 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census Report. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census Report. California Department of Finance IDOFI, 1999 Overcrowding Along with the City's population growth has been an increase in unit overcrowding, as households "double up" to save on housing costs. Since 1980, overcrowding has increased from 1.2 to 4.2 percent in owner-occupied units, and from 5.3 to 16.2 percent in renter- occupied units (1990 Census). Overcrowding is often reflective of one of three conditions: 1) either a family or household is living in too small a dwelling; 2) a family chooses to house extended family members (i.e., grandparents or grown children and their families living with parents, termed doubling); or 3) a family is renting living space to non-family members. Both State and Federal Housing Law defines overcrowded housing units as those in which the ratio of persons-to-rooms exceeds The rooms considered in this equation excludes bathrooms, kitchens, and hallways, but includes other rooms such as living and dining rooms. For example, a one-bedroom apartment with living room, kitchen, and bathroom would be considered overcrowded if more than two persons occupied it. The 1999 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) figures showed 2,390 (9 percent) households living in overcrowded conditions. Of the households living in such conditions, 86% were renters, of which nearly 38% were Extremely- or Very-Low income households. Table HTM-8 illustrates the numbers of all Tustin households living in overcrowded conditions. Income Household income directly affects housing affordability. In general, upper income households have more discretionary income to spend on housing, while low and moderate-income households are more limited in the range of housing they can afford. CITY OF TUSTIN - TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 17 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 0 According to the 1990 Census, the median household income for the City of Tustin was $38,433. Table HTM-9 compares median household and family incomes between the City of Tustin and nearby jurisdictions, counties, and the State of California. In 1990, the City's median household income was about 16% lower than the median household income for the County as a whole. Table HTM-9 demonstrates that at $38,433, Tustin's 1990 median household income was below the Orange County median ($45,922). This trend was consistent as well for median family income in the above- mentioned jurisdictions. TABLE HTM-9 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME: TUSTIN AND SURROUNDING AREAS 1990 Median Percent Median Percent Household Above/Below Family Above/Below Jurisdiction Income Count~/Median Income Count), Median Tustin $38,433 -16.3% $42,840 -16.3% Anaheim $39,620 -13.7% $43,133 -15.7% Garden Grove $39,822 13.3 % $41,930 -18.1% Irvine $56,307 22.6% $64,717 26.5% Santa Ana $35,162 23.4% $34,760 -32.1% Orange County $45,922 --- $51,167 -- State of California $35,798 -22.0% $40,559 -20.7% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1990 TABLE HTM-10 ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION: 1990 AND 1999 CITY OF TUSTIN Household 1990 1999 Income Range Number Percent Number Percent $0,000-$14,999 2,126 11.6% 1,905 8.4% $15,000-$24,999 2,706 14.8% 2,319 10.2% $25,000-$34,999 3,321 18.1% 2,742 12.0% $35,000-$49,999 3,636 19.8% 4,633 '20.5% $50,000-$74,999 3,706 20.2% 4,669 20.5% $75,000-$99,999 1,591 8.7% 2,806 12.3% $100,00 or more 1,252 6.8% 3,682 16.2% Total 18,338 100% 22,756 100% Source: Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strate~-~ 2000 - 2010. CITY OF TUSTIN TE, CHNICAL MEMORANDUM 20 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 As illustrated in Table HTM-10, the 1999 income distribution remained somewhat similar to 1990 figures, with the exception of the number of households earning a yearly income of $100,000 or more. These households more than doubled, increasing from 7% to 16% of all households. Overall, the income distribution can be summed in two categories: 51% of the households falling in the income brackets of $49,999 or less; and 49% falling in the income brackets of $50,000 or more. Further, households headed by the very young and the elderly comprised the largest groups in the low-income category. In this sense, nearly one-quarter (24%) of the households headed by persons aged 65 or older earn less than $15,000 annually, as compared to only 4.6% of the households head by persons aged 25 to 64. The majority of the 25 to 64 age group (60%) were in the $35,000 to $74,999 income bracket and 42% were earning $75,000 or more annually. Table HTM- 11 is a summary of income distribution by age. TABLE HTM-11 ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION BY AGE OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD 1999 CITY OF TUSTIN Household Total-Ail Income Under 25 Years 25 to 44 Years 45 to 64 Years 65+ Years Households Range No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % $0,000-$14,999 158 12.1% 568 4.9% 470 6.8% 708 24.0% 1,904 8.4% $15,000- $24,999 316 24.3% 1,006 8.7% 535 7.8% 463 15.7% 2,320 10.2% $25,000- $34,999 273 21.0% 1,446 12.5% 654 9.5% 369 12.5% 2,742 12.1% $35,000- $49,999 267 20.5% 2,757 23.7% 1,187 17.2% 423 14.3% 4,634 20.4% $50,000- $74,999 182 14.0% 2,683 23.1% 1,403 20.4% 398 13.5% 4,666 20.5% $75,ooo- $99,999 66 5.1% 1,445 12.4% 1,039 15.1% 256 8.7% 2,806 12.3% $100,00 or more 39 3.0% 1,704 14.7% 1,605 23.3% 335 11.3% 3,683 16.2% Total 1,301 100% 11,609 100% 6,893 100% 2,952 100% 22,755 100% Source: Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strate~ 2000 - 2010. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 21 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Housing Affordability The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines the threshold of overpayment for housing as 30% or more of household income. That is, when households pay more than 30% of their income for housing, they have insufficient remaining funds for other necessities such as food, clothing, utilities and health care. HUD recognizes, however, that upper income households are generally capable of paying a larger proportion of their income for housing, and therefore estimates of housing overpayment generally focus on lower income groupsL The 1999 RHNA identifies housing overpayment for lower-income households based on income data from the 1990 Census. Lower- income households are those earning less than 80% of the County median income. Lower-income households include very-low-income (<50% of median) and low- income (51%-80% of median) groups. Table HTM-12 reflects SCAG's 1999 report, which estimates that 8,569 of Tustin households were overpaying for housing of which 5,494 or 64 % were very low and low-income households. Among the overpaying lower income households, about 29% were extremely low income, 34% were very low income, and 37% were low-income households. Table HTM-12 also distinguishes between owner and renter households overpaying for housing. This distinction is important because while homeowners may over-extend themselves financially to afford the option of home purchase, the owner maintains the option to sell at market rate; on the other hand, renters are limited to the rental market and are generally required to pay the rent established in that market. The table shows that among the lower income households in the City overpaying for housing, 4,444 or 81% were renters. ~ Some agencies and organizations consider Moderate Income households to be overpaying when housing costs exceed 35 percent of gross income, with the maximum income representing 110% of the median county income. Under these assumptions, overpayment occurs in fewer households in the City of Tustin when compared to figures presented in this document that are based upon State and Federal standards. Source: Strategies.for Planning and Development: California Affordable Housing Handbook, California Redevelopment Association, 2000. CITY OF TUSTIN TBCHNICAL MEMORANDUM 22 HOUSING F_.LF. MF. NT NO VF. MBE, R 2002 TABLE HTM-12 HOUSEHOLDS OVERPAYING FOR SHELTER 1999 CITY OF TUSTIN Moderate & Extremely Low Very Low Low Above Total Total All Tenure Overpay Total Overpay Total Overpay Total Overpay Total Overpay Households Owner 307 517 392 1,862 351 2,511 2,001 7,261 3,051 9,245 Renter 1,290 1,505 1,457 653 1,697 814 1,074 7,450 5,518 13,327 Total 1,597 2,022 1,849 2,514 2,048 3,325 3,075 12,354 8,569 22,572 Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 1999. Special Needs State Housing Law requires that the special needs of certain disadvantaged groups be addressed. The needs of the elderly, disabled, large families, female heads of household, the homeless and farm workers are important in relation to overall community health. These groups may maintain special needs related to housing construction and location. The Elderly: As noted previously (Table HTM-2), in 1990, 3,843 persons or 7.6% of the total population in Tustin were 65 years of age or older. In addition, senior households represented 12.3 percent (2,256) of total households in Tustin. According to California State University at Fullerton's Center for Demographic Research Center (CDR), there was a slight decrease in percentage in the elderly population in 2000 at 4,804 (7.2%). As noted earlier in Table HTM-11, nearly one-quarter of this age group earns an annual income of less than $15,000 and 40% earn less than $25,000 annually. Although the senior population may often be living in a single-family home too large for their needs, with little or no mortgage payment, selling the home and buying a smaller unit may be too expensive. Thus, this population needs housing that is both affordable and located in close proximity to public services and transportation. The Disabled: According to the 1990 Census, there were 2,162 disabled people in the City. The disabled community, as defined by the California Department of Rehabilitation California Disability Survey, includes four classifications of disability. These classifications and their percentages of the total handicapped population are as follows: CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 23 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 TABLE HTM-13 DISABILITY CLASSIFICATION Musculoskeletal or Circulatory I 59.4% Chronic, Internal (Respiratory, Digestive, Neurological)I 25.6% Sensory (Visual, Hearing, Speech) 9.1% Mental (Retardation, Emotional, Substance Abuse) 2% Not-Classified 3.9% Source: California De[~artment of Rehabilitation According to these figures, the majority of people with disabilities (PWD) have musculoskeletal disabilities. Units for persons with musculoskeletal disabilities must provide access and be adaptable to their needs, such as wheelchair accessibility. Disabled persons often require specially designed dwelling units to permit access not only within the dwelling unit, but also to and from the unit. Special modifications to permit free access are very important in maintaining independence and dignity. California Administrative Code Title 24 Requirements set forth access and adaptability requirements for the physically disabled. These regulations apply to public buildings such as motels, and require that ramp ways, door widths, restroom modifications, etc., be designed to enable free access to the handicapped. While such standards are not mandatory for new single-family residential construction, they do apply to new multi-family residential construction. Most existing housing units in Tustin have not been designed with consideration for these requirements of adaptability and access. The majority of housing units are either single-family or two-story apartments with no elevator access. The adaptability of units to meet the needs of disabled persons remains a challenge for Tustin and other communities. However, as additional housing units are provided in the East Tustin area, accessibility is considered as part of a project's design as required by law. Additionally, as units in multiple-family areas are rehabilitated, units may be retrofitted to accommodate the handicapped. New construction may offer some relief because the mandatory requirements are evenly applied to all projects. According to the Uniform Building Code, rental projects of 20 units or more in size require accessibility and adaptability in at least one unit. The use of mixed development types and higher density limits in the East CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 24 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Tustin area will further require development of even more handicapped-accessible units. ' Large Families: Under the Census guidelines, a family household containing five or more persons is considered a large family. Large family households generally require larger dwelling units with more bedrooms to meet their housing needs. But family households with five or more persons often face limitations in being below national poverty levels, and often experience difficulty securing adequate housing suitable for their expanded needs. Moreover, because multifamfly rental units are typically smaller than single-family units, larger families who are also renters face more difficulties in securing housing large enough to accommodate all members of the household. In 1990, 11% of Tustin households had five or more persons residing in a unit. 1999 data shows a slight increase in the number of households with five or more persons at 13.6% of total households. Table HTM-14 is a summary of Tustin's household sizes. TABLE HTM-14 HOUSEHOLD SIZE DISTRIBUTION 1999 Household Size 1 Person CITY OF TUSTIN Number of Households 5,211 % of Total Households 22.9% 2 Persons 7,191 31.6 % 3 Persons 4,141 18.2% 4 Persons 3,117 13.7% 5 or more Persons 3,095 13.6% 22,755 Total Households 100.0% Source: Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy 2000 - 2010. The primary need of large families is to provide enough rooms for each member of the family to avoid overcrowding. In 1990, 15% of the City's housing units contained four or more bedrooms. Of owner- occupied housing units, 12.9% contained four or more bedrooms. Rental-occupied units accounted for 1.6% of units with four or more bedrooms. Taking into account that much of Tustin's housing stock consists of apartments, and that the majority of Tustin's large CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 25 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 families are renters, this rising trend in large families suggests a need for more specious apartment units to accommodate such families. Female-Headed Parent Households: The housing needs of female- headed parent households are generally related to affordability since such households typically have lower than average incomes. According to the 1990 Census, the City of Tustin had 1,178 female- headed households with children less than 18 years of age. For these households, ideal housing is severely restricted. Due to financial constraints, the family is often not able to find housing that is close to needed services, schools, and public transportation. The Homeless: Measuring the extent of the homeless population specifically in Tustin remains a challenge for community leaders. To complicate the challenge of meeting homeless persons' needs, the issue of homelessness is considered regional in nature. Nomadic tendencies of homeless persons make it difficult to assess the population accurately on a citywide basis; therefore, homelessness should be addressed on a countywide basis, in conjunction with cities and local non-profit organizations. According to 1999 studies prepared by the Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), each night there are an estimated 14,086 homeless persons in the County. Sixty-six percent of the homeless population includes persons in families with children. Orange County also reported statistics on homeless populations, as shown in Table HTM-15. TABLE HTM-15 HOMELESS SUB-POPULATION GROUPS 1999 ORANGE COUNTY Sub-Pol~ulation Chronic Substance Abusers Severely Mentally Ill Dually Diagnosed Estimated Number of Persons 6,093 1,539 2,482 Veterans 4,964 AIDS Afflicted Persons 5,149 Victims of Domestic Violence and their Children 5,860 Homeless Youth 2,168 Physically Disabled 5,341 Estimated Total Homeless Population~ 14,086 1 Some persons fall within more than one identified sub-population, therefore the sum of sub-populations exceeds the total homeless estimate. Source: Count~ of Orange, Continuum of Care Sunm~, 1999. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 26 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 There are numerous factors that contribute to homelessness in Tustin and Orange County. The known causes of homelessness include unemployment, limited skills, and a breakdown in the family as a social and economic unit. Additionally, cutbacks in social service programs and the de-institutionalization of the mentally ill during the 1980s have contributed to the homeless population. A new trend, however, is emerging as a significant contributing element to homelessness: a fast-growing lack of affordable housing, which could exacerbate any of the above conditions, but may increasingly become a stand alone cause of homelessness. In a 1999 national study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Orange County ranked last of 45 Metropolitan Statistical Areas in providing affordable housing opportunities. Compared to a national average of 1.7 low-income renters competing for every low- cost apartment, four Orange County low-income renters competed for each low-cost apartment. Lack of affordable housing, coupled with recent cutbacks in social service programs, have produced a sizable population at risk of homelessness. In 1999, the Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development applied to HUD for Continuum of Care (COC) Homeless Assistance funds on behalf of the County, cities and non- profit organizations. The Continuum of Care is the County's major umbrella funding source for homeless abatement, which disperses funding to cities and non-profit groups to provide shelter and emergency care to the homeless. COC is the County's primary defense against homelessness. City of Tustin pohce reports and windshield surveys have shown that there are no established areas where homeless persons congregate in the City, and that most persons migrate through Tustin, rather than stay for extended periods of time. The City's Police Department estimates that there are 10-12 homeless persons residing in the City at any given time. Of the shelters in Tustin, the 45-bed Sheepfold shelter provides shelter, food, clothing, job training, and job-referral services primarily to battered women and children. Guests are admitted on a first-come, first-served basis. Usually all beds are fully occupied. The shelter services a large area including many portions of Orange and San Bernardino Counties. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 27 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Within the City of Tustin, there are a variety of Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs) that provide direct housing and related services to homeless persons. These include Sheepfold, a feeding program affiliated with the United Way, and Laurel House, an emergency shelter and transitional housing provider for homeless youth in the City. Additional programs will also be provided at the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin site. A significant portion of the MCAS is located within the City. The MCAS Tustin facility was identified by the U.S. Department of Defense for closure in July 1999. In accordance with the Base Closure Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (Redevelopment Act), the City of Tustin was formally recognized as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for the MCAS Tustin. The Redevelopment Act provides a process that aims to balance the needs of the homeless with other development interests in the communities directly affected by closure of the installation. The Act requires the LRA to prepare a reuse plan and Homeless Assistance Plan (HAP), which is submitted to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD reviews and determines whether the documents balance the needs of the homeless in communities in the vicinity of the installation with the need for economic development. A Homeless Assistance Plan has been established for MCAS, Tustin that is consistent with the continuum of care model embodied in the Consolidated Plans for the Cities of Tustin and neighboring Irvine. The fundamental components of the continuum of care system to be implemented with the MCAS, Tustin Reuse Plan would: ° Provide emergency shelter beds and intake assessment o Offer transitional housing and services Provide opportunities for permanent affordable housing by the private sector. In the MCAS Reuse Plan, the LRA will own sites and four homeless service providers, including the Salvation Army, Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter, Families Forward, and DOVE Housing have been approved to operate 50 family units at the former base. The Orange County Rescue Mission will also operate a 192-unit transitional/emergency shelter. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 28 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Numerous other agencies provide shelter and other services to the homeless in the nearby cities of Santa Ana, Irvine, and Orange. The Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force, a non-profit homeless advocacy organization, maintains a list of these and other homeless services in Orange County. Table HTM-16 is a list of organizations in Tustin that provide homeless services. The Sheepfold and Laurel House are located in R-1 districts and are permitted by right under the State Law related to Community Care Facilities. The facilities at the MCAS Tustin will be permitted by special discretionary approvals such as conditional use permits. The City's current code related to homeless, transitional housing, and boarding homes are as follows: · A group housing arrangement in a single family home is not subject to City permits (consistent with State Law). The R-3 and R-4 districts would allow for boarding homes with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A group home serving clients in a multi-family dwelling would fall under this definition. Sheepfold Facility TABLE HTM-16 EMERGENCY SHELTER/TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FACILITIES 1999 CITY OF TUSTIN Services Provided Provides shelter, food, clothing, job training, and ob-referral services to women with children. Laurel House St. Cecilia's Redhill Lutheran Tustin Presbyterian Aldergate Source: Cit~ of Tustin, 1999. Temporary housing for teenagers in crisis. The facility also provides food, informal counseling~ and access to medical care and clothing. Distributes food supply to needy populations. Operates emergency food program where a person can receive food supply 3 times a year. Collects food supplies and distributes the food to various organizations involved in providing homeless services. Refers interested persons to Ecumenical Services Alliance in Santa Ana. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 29 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS A housing unit is a dwelling intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Single-family houses, apartments, condominiums, mobile homes, and single room occupancy (SRO) hotels are all types of housing units. This section examines housing unit growth, age, type, tenure (owner v. renter), and costs in Tustin. Housing Growth Like many other communities in Orange County, Tustin has seen a significant increase in housing units since 1990. The number of housing units increased from 19,300 to 24,531 during this period, representing a 27% increase in units (1990 Census, 1999 DOF estimates). Table HTM-17 compares the growth in housing units in Tustin to nearby cities and the County as a whole. It should be noted that much of the City's housing unit growth is attributable to annexations that occurred during the 1980s and 1990s. TABLE HTM-17 HOUSING GROWTH TRENDS 1980 - 1999 TUSTIN AND SURROUNDING AREAS Number of Housing Units Percent Change Jurisdiction 1980 1 1990 2 1999 3 1980-90 1990-99 Tustin 14,892 19,300 24,531 30% 27% Anaheim 87,725 93,177 99,351 13% 7% Garden Grove 42,846 45,957 46,606 7% 1% Irvine 22,514 42,221 48,764 88 % 16 % Santa Ana 67,180 75,000 74,932 12% --.10% Orange Count~ 721,514 875,105 954,882 21% 9 % U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census Report. 1990 Census Report. State of California. De~0artment of Finance, Population Estimates 1999. Housing Unit Type Table HTM-18 demonstrates the mix of housing types in Tustin. The 1999 composition of housing traits in the City includes 30.6 percent single-family detached, 10.8 percent single-family attached, 12.8 percent multi-family (2-4 units), 43.0 percent multi-family (5+ units), and 2.9 percent mobile homes. Compared to Orange County as a whole, Tustin has a significantly higher proportion of multi-family housing. According to 1999 CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 30 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Department of Finance Estimates, the County contained 61.4 percent single-family detached/attached units and 35.2 percent multi-family units, where as Tustin contained 55.8 percent multi-family units. TABLE HTM-18 TUSTIN RESIDENTIAL UNIT MIX 1990 - 1999 CITY OF TUSTIN Number of Housing Units Percent Change Housing Type 1990 % 1999 % 1990-1999 Single-Family 5,351 27.7% 7,503 30.6% 40.2% Detached Single-Family 2,530 13.1% 2,646 10.8% 4.6% Attached Multi-Family 3,089 16.0% 3,132 12.8% 1.4% (2-4 units) Multi-Family 7,678 39.5% 10,548 43.0% 38.3% (5+ units) Mobile Homes 707 3.6% 702 2.9% 0% Total 19,300 99.9%* 24,531 100.1%* N/A * Totals do not equal 100% due to rounding error. Source: California DeI~artment of Finance Tusffn's current vacancy rate is 7.2% (1999 Department of Finance), comparatively higher than the County average of 5.7%. Table HTM- 19 shows the 1999 vacancy rate by tenure. The high vacancy rate, particularly among rental units, indicates that a significant resource of housing units already exists to meet the housing needs of the City. However, available vacant units may not always meet a household's ability to pay the asking rent and/or the size needed. TABLE HTM-19 VACANCY RATES 1999 Housing Tenure Vacant Rental Units Vacant Sale Units Seasonally Vacant Units Vacant-other Subtotal-Vacant Units Occupied Units Total Housing Units CITY OF TUSTIN Number 1,188 204 61 323 1,776 22,755 24,531 Source: Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strate~ 2000 - 2010. Percent 4.8% 0.8% 0.2% 1.3% 7.2% 92.8% 100% CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 31 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Housing Tenure The tenure (owner versus renter) distribution of a community's housing stock influences several aspects of the local housing market. Residential mobility is influenced by tenure, with ownership housing typically sustaining a much lower turnover rate than rental housing. Housing overpayment, while experienced by many households regardless of tenure, is far more prevalent among renters. Ownership and rental preferences are primarily related to household income, composition, and age of the householder. In 1990, 40.9% of the City's 18,332 occupied housing units were owner-occupied, with the remainder renter-occupied. Compared to the County as a whole, which had 57.5% owner-occupied units and 37.6% renter-occupied units, the City of Tustin had a relatively high proportion of renter occupied units. This is significant because renters tend to have lower incomes than owners, and are more susceptible to housing cost increases. The tenure figures have remained relatively the same in 1999, with very slight increases of 1,757 new homeowners and 2,666 renters. Table HTM-20 is a summary of tenure in the City. TABLE HTM-20 TENURE 1990 AND 1999 CITY OF TUSTIN 1990 1999 Housing Tenure Number Percent Number Percent Owner-Occupied 7,504 40.9 % 9,261 40.7% Renter-Occupied 10,828 59.1% 13,494 59.3 % Total Occu~0ied Units 18,332 100.0% 22,755 100.0% Source: 1999 SCAG RHNA Existing Needs. Age and Condition of Housing Stock Housing age is a factor for determining the need for rehabilitation. Without proper maintenance, housing units deteriorate over time. Also, older houses may not be built to current housing standards for fire and earthquake safety. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 32 HOUSING ELEMENT NO VEMBER 2 002 Table HTM-21 indicates the period in which housing units were built in Tustin based upon 1999 Department of Finance estimates. In 2000, approximately 64% of the City's housing stock was over 30 years old. However, in 10 years, 78% of the City's housing stock will be over 30 years old. This indicates a potential need for rehabilitation and continued maintenance of approximately 19,300 dwelling units by the year 2010. TABLE HTM-21 AGE OF HOUSING STOCK CITY OF TUSTIN Time Period Units Built Number of Units 1990 or Later 5,231 21.3 1980 to 1989 3,401 13.9% 1970 to 1979 6,170 25.2% 1960 to 1969 7,863 32.1% 1950 to 1959 1,195 4.9% 1940 to 1949 374 1.5% 1939 or earlier 297 1.2% Total 24,531 100% Source: Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy 2000 - 2010; Department of Finance, 1999. % of Housing Stock Housing Costs This section discusses ownership and rental housing costs in Tustin and evaluates the affordability of this housing to the City's various income groups. TABLE HTM-22 DISTRIBUTION OF OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY VALUE 1999 CITY OF TUSTIN City of Tustin Orange County Property Value Number Percent Number Percent Less than $100,000 185 2.0% 7,331 2.0% $100,000 to $124,999 287 3.1% 8,064 2.2% $125,000-$149,999 685 7.4% 15,028 4.1% $150,000-199,999 1,074 11.6% 57,179 15.6% $200,000-$299,999 3,445 37.2% 136,349 37.2% $300,000 ore More 3,585 38.7% 142,580 38.9% Total 9,261 100% 366,531 100% Median Pro~ert~ Value $272,970 $266,771 Source: Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strate~ 2000 - 2010. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL ME, MORAND UM 33 HOUSING ELEMENT NO VE, MBER 2002 Based on data derived from the National Decision Systems, 76% of the owner-occupied units are valued at $200,000 or higher. The median value for the owner-occupied units is $272,970, which is higher than the County as a whole where the median value is $266,771. Table HTM-22 is a summary of home value in the City. Ownership Housing: According to Dataquick, an on-line research firm, the December 1999 median price for an existing home in Orange County was $258,000, while median price for condominiums was $159,000. The median resale home prices for zip codes in the City of Tustin ranged from $210,000 to $386,000. In comparison, the median resale home prices for cities presented in Table HTM-23 ranged from $95,000 to $395,000. Overall, median resale home prices in Tustin were similar to those occurring throughout Orange County. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 34 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 TABLE HTM-23 RESALE PRICE OF HOMES AND CONDOMINIUMS TUSTIN AND NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS DECEMBER, 1999 Median Home Price- % Change City Zip Code December 1999 1 1998-1999 Tustin 92780 $210,000 -12.1% Tustin 92782 386,000 32.6% 92801 $181,000 14.6% 92802 $159,000 2.6% Anaheim 92804 $186,000 10.1% 92805 $176,500 7.0% 92806 $210,500 4.2% 92840 $200,000 17.5% 92841 $202,500 19.1% Garden Grove 92843 $182,750 10.8% 92844 $170,000 21.9% 92845 $235,500 6.1% 92604 $231,500 -13.3% 92606 $337,500 30.0% Irvine 92612 $311,250 23.6 % 92614 $257,000 4.9% 92620 $357,500 13.9% 92865 $218,750 -5.9% 92866 $235,000 19.1% Orange 92867 $275,000 1.3 % 92868 $159,750 -0.8% 92869 $220,500 -18.2% 92701 $95,000 -25.8% 92703 $146,000 -2.7% 92704 $165,500 4.7% Santa Ana 92705 $395,000 2 29.7% 92706 $250,000 39.7% 92707 $148,750 4.0% ! Data include all home sales, new and resale, and condominiums. 2 Includes Lemon/Cowan Heights Source: Datac~uick, 2000 Rental Housing According to the 1990 Census, the median rent for Tustin was $746. The majority (76%) of studio and one-bedroom rental units had monthly rents between $500 and $749. Over 60 percent of two- bedroom rentals had monthly rents of $750 and above while nearly three-quarters (74%) of units with three-or-more bedrooms had CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 35 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 monthly rents in excess of $750. According to RealFacts, the average rent for the City of Tustin was $1,067 in March 2000. Table HTM-24 presents a summary of the rental rates. The table shows that the average monthly rental rate for a studio was $875 and $869 for a one-bedroom unit. Two-bedroom units ranged between $957 and $1,251 while three-bedroom units ranged between $1,418 and $1,641. The lowest rental rates were $856 for a one- bedroom unit, $949 for a two-bedroom unit, and $1,416 for a three- bedroom unit (RealFacts, March 2000). When a household (adjusted for family size) pays more than 30% of its gross income for housing, it is considered an overpayment. Based on HUD's figures on affordability, households in the Very Low- income category have annual incomes of $34,150 or less. Accordingly, the maximum rent affordable to such household is $853 per month. In Tustin, the average rent for a one-bedroom unit is $869. It is also important to note that many of the households in the Very-Low income category are large families, thus a one-bedroom unit at $869 would not only be in excess of what they could afford, but would also be inadequate in size. Households in the Low-Income category (51%-80% of County median) can afford $1,366 per month for housing. The rental survey shows that all two-bedroom units but no three-bedroom units are affordable to this group (see Table HTM-25). It is important to note, however, that the rental survey considered only large, investment- grade rental properties and did not report prices of smaller rental properties. According to City staff, smaller rental properties represent a large segment of the rental market and offer three- bedroom units that are affordable to low-income households. In summary, the preceding information suggests that, while rental housing is available in the City at rents that are affordable to all income groups, certain types of rental housing, such as single-family homes and condomiru'um/townhouses, are generally not affordable to the City's lower- income households. Perhaps most importantly, rental rates for units with two or more bedrooms are beyond the reach of the City's Very-Low-income households. This means that a Very-Low income household consisting of three or more persons would have a difficult time finding affordable housing of adequate size. Table HTM-25 is an illustration of rent affordability. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 36 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 TABLE HTM-24 AVERAGE RENTAL RATES 2000 CITY OF TUSTIN Number of Number of Average Average Bedrooms Units Square Footage Rent Studio 164 499 $875 lbd/lba 2,373 732 $869 2bd TH 254 1,054 $1,195 2bd/lba 736 975 $957 2bd/2ba 2,080 1,019 $1,251 3bd TH 56 1,441 $1,418 3bd/2ba 252 1,202 $1,641 Total 5,915 897 $1,067 Source: RealFacts, March 2000 *Rental survey represents data only for large, investment grade rental properties. Smaller rental properties represent a large segment of the rental market and offer lar~er, more affordable units. TABLE HTM-25 MAXIMUM RENT AND PURCHASE PRICE BY INCOME CATEGORY 1999 CITY OF TUSTIN Maximum Maximum Annual Affordable Affordable Income Cate~or~ Income ~ Rent Payment 2 Purchase Price <Very Low (50%) $34,150 $853 $100,00 Low (51-80%) $34,141-54,640 $1,366 $160,000 Moderate (81-120%) $54,641-81,959 $2,049 $250,000 Above Moderate(>120%) >$81,960 >$2,049 >$250,000 Median $68,300 ~ Based on HUD income limits January 1999. 2 Calculated as 30% of income divided by 12 months. 3 Assumes 10% down payment, an 8.5% interest rate, 1.25% tax and homeowners insurance, and 28% debt ratio. Source: The Plannin~ Center, 1999 Share of Region's Housing Needs Section 65584 of the Government Code requires each locality's share of the existing and future housing needs to be determined by the appropriate council of governments. Each jurisdiction's allocation represents its fair share of the regional housing needs. The City of Tustin's current and projected housing needs are derived from the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 37 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2,002 The components of the RHNA are divided between "existing needs" and future "construction needs." Existing needs were discussed earlier in the housing affordability section of this report. Construction needs are defined as the number of units that would have to be added to accommodate the forecasted growth in the number of households by July, 2005, as well as the number of units that would have to be added to compensate for anticipated demolitions and to achieve an "ideal" vacancy rate. Construction need includes all income groups (from very low to upper) and not just those households that require assistance. The total need figure is then distributed among the four income groups. The allocations of housing needs by income group are adjusted to avoid Lower-Income "impaction" - the over-concentration of Lower-Income households in a jurisdiction. SCAG's RHNA fair-share allocation for the 1998-2005 period is 3,298 units. This allocation is based on a household growth of 3,023 units; a vacancy adjustment of 163 units; and housing unit loss adjustment of 112 units. The closure of the MCAS presents the City of Tustin with a total of 947.7 acres available for residential re-use and development. Amongst other types of uses, the City plans to add a total of 4,049 housing units of mixed density and housing type throughout the area. The City of Tustin proposes to also create a Redevelopment Project Area for the MCAS-Tustin project. Based on State Redevelopment Law requirements, at least fifteen (15) percent of the units constructed within a Redevelopment Project Area must be affordable to Very Low, Low, and Moderate-income households. Accordingly, from the potential new units to be built on the MCAS site, the creation of a redevelopment project area would result in up to 495 units (243 units plus 192 transitional housing units) being allocated for Very Low-income housing and an additional 364 units be created for Low- and Moderate Income households. To meet its fair share of the region's housing needs during the 1998- 2005 planning period, the City estimates it must add 3,298 housing units (refer to Table HTM-26). Of these, 21% must be affordable to Very-Low-income households (earning less than 50.% of the County median), 15% must be affordable to Low-Income households (earning between 50% and 80% of the County median), and 65% to the moderate and above moderate income groups. (earning over 80% of County median income). Table HTM-26 is a summary of housing need distribution for the 2000-2005 planning period. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MF__,MORAND UM 38 HOUSING ELEMENT NO VEMBF-,R 2002 TABLE HTM-26 2000-2005 HOUSING NEEDS CITY OF TUSTIN Income Cate[~ory Very Low (<50% County Median) Low (50% - 80% County Median) Moderate (80% - 120% County Median) Above Moderate (120% County Median) Total # of Units 694 % of Total 21% 3,298* 489 15% 778 24% 1,337 41% lOO% Source: RHNA allocation, 2000. Note: Cumulative percentages do not equal to 100% due to rounding. * See below for discussion on City's a]v~eals of RHNA allocation. On July 26, 1999, the City of Tustin appealed the draft Construction Need/Vacancy Need methodology to the Orange County Council of Governments (Delegate Sub-Region) through the Alternative Dispute Resolution Process. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Board recommended approval of the City's appeal to the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) Board. On August 19, 1999, the OCCOG adopted Resolution No. 99-03 approving the RHNA for the Orange County sub-region. Included in that action was the recommendation that the Regional Council (SCAG) adjust the Vacancy rates for MCAS, Tustin because the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the 1990 Census data vacancy rates did not accurately reflect the base closure. The OCCOG recommended as follows: 505 units for the Very Low Income households, 355 units for the Low Income households, 566 units for the Moderate Income households, and 973 for the Above Moderate Income households for a total of 2,399 units new construction needs. On December 9, 1999 and June 22, 2000, the City of Tustin appealed the RHNA Vacancy Need numbers that were used to calculate total construction needs for the City of Tustin. The appeal was based on a unique situation in that 985 housing units located at the based was not properly counted as vacant housing units by the Department of Finance and are not reflected in the 1990 census credited vacancy methodology. The SCAG Community, Economic, and Human Development (CEHD) Committee rejected both appeals despite the recommendation by the Orange County Council of Governments. Accordingly, while the City has prepared this Housing Element using the figures determined by SCAG, the City respectfully maintains its concern over the RHNA Vacancy Need methodology. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 39 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 ASSISTED HOUSING PRESERVATION ANALYSIS State law (Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989) requires all housing elements to include needs analyses and programs to address the potential conversion of Federal, State, and locally assisted housing developments ("units at risk") to market rate housing. For example, the federally subsidized loans provided to many low-income housing projects during the 1970s contained provisions that allow the owner to "prepay" the loans after 20 years, thereby removing the low- income subsidy from the project. As part of the "units at risk" analysis, the State requires that local jurisdictions perform the following tasks: Needs Analysis: to include an inventory of units at risk of converting to market rate housing during 2000- 2010; an analysis of the potential for loss of affordability controls; a cost analysis of preserving or replacing the at-risk units; identification of agencies willing to acquire and manage these projects; and, identification of funding sources available to preserve or replace them. Quantified Objectives: A quantification of the units to be conserved, and explanation of any difference between the number of units at risk and the number to be conserved. Housing Programs: A description of programs to preserve the units at risk. Tustin has one project that contains units "at risk" of converting to market rate use during the 2000-2005 planning period. Tustin Gardens is a 101-unit Section 221(D)(4) project with a Section 8 contract for 100 units due to expire before July 2000. Projects financed under the Section 221(D)(4) market rate program alone have no binding income use restrictions. The conversion of this project will have an adverse impact for the elderly who may face substantial rent. increase or possible displacement. Table HTM-27 lists all of the Federal, State, and locally assisted low-income housing projects located in the City of Tustin due to expire by 2005. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 40 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Table HTM-28 is an inventory of all multi-family rental units assisted under federal, state, and/or local programs, including HUD programs, state and local bond programs, redevelopment programs, and local in-lieu fee, inclusionary, density bonus, or direct assistance programs. The inventory includes all units that are eligible to convert to non-lower income housing uses due to termination of subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or expiring use restrictions. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 41 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 42 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Cost of Replacement/Acquisition and Rehabilitation Analysis: This section analyzes and compares the costs of acquiring "at risk" projects versus the cost of building replacement units, should the projects convert and be lost as low-income housing. In the Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy 2000-2010, two different alternatives in addressing "at risk" units were evaluated, including replacement of existing units by means of newly constructed units, and acquiring and rehabilitating units. The replacement of lost "assisted" units would cost $125,883 per unit. Applying this figure to all four projects, replacing all 100 assisted units would cost approximately $12,588,300. Alternatively, should these "at risk" units be acquired and rehabilitated, the per unit cost would be less at $100,777 per unit. Accordingly, the acquisition and rehabilitation all 100 units would cost approximately $10,077,700. The costs associated the replacement/acquisition/rehabilitation are detailed in Table HTM-29. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 47 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 TABLE HTM-29 COST OF REPLACING AND ACQUISITION/REHABILITATION OF ASSISTED UNITS Cost Items Total Net Square Feet Ratio Net/Gross SF Total Gross Scl. Ft. Building Area L_and and Building Acquisition Relocation Costs Demolition Costs Off-Site Im?rovements' Site Improvements Unit Construction Hard Costs2 Hard Cost Contingency Arch./Eng./Cons. Supervision Local Permits and Fees City Bldg Permits3 Sewer, Water, Utilities4 School Fees Alta Survey Environmental Phase I and lis Soils Testing Construction Loan Fees Permanent Loan Fees Construction/Lease-Up Interest Property Insurance Property Taxes During Construction Construction Loan Title and Closing Appraisal Fees Real Estate Legal Organizational Construction Manager Development/Bond/Financial Adv. Market Study Post-Construction Audit Marketing/l e_ase-up / Start-Up Furniture/Equipment Soft Cost Contingency Operaling Reserve Operating Deficit Guarantee Fee Development/Admin. Fee Total Project Cost Cost Per Unit ~Off-site improvements estimated at $1,500 New Construction/Replacement (60 Units for Seniors) 37,100 85% Acquisition/Rehab. -Large Proiect (80 Units) 65,600 85% 43,647 77,176 $967,742 $5,200,000 - - 90,000 720,000 2,527,882 259,831 202,231 150,000 663,232 771,765 61,741 30,871 200,000 3,000 30,000 40,000 10,0o0 10,000 7%182 58,707 91,068 129,044 500,051 357,061 12,639 3,859 10,000 5,000 15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 50,0O0 30,000 10,000 75,000 /unit. 15,000 100,000 60,000 22,282 99,000 755,296 $7,552,961 $125,883 2 Includes community room costs, with a 1000 Sq. Ft. room for the senior prototype. 3 Permit fees estimated at $2,500/unit. 4 No fee for rehabilitation projects. 5 Based on $500/unit cost. Source: Comprehensive Affordable Housing Strategy 2000 - 2010. 25,000 50,000 50,000 13,443 144,000 806,218 $8,062,184 CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 48 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Local Rental Subsidy. An option for preservation of at-risk units assisted by either project based Section 8 funds and/or bond financing would be a local rental subsidy to residents. This option could be used to retain the affordable status of the units, by providing assistance to residents when their affordable units convert to market rate. Rent subsidies using state, local (Redevelopment Agency, the use of HOME funds, or other funding sources) can be used to maintain the affordability of these at-risk units. Rent subsidies can be structured to mirror the Section 8 program. There are several funding sources that could be used to provide subsidies to residents. Under the project based Section 8 program, HUD pays owners the difference between what tenants can pay (defined as 30% of household income) and what HUD and the local Housing Authority estimate to be Fair Market Rent (FMR) on the unit. Section 8 assistance is only available to very low-income households earning less than 50% of the County median income. The 1999 HUD median income in Orange County is $68,300. The analysis also assumes the average very low-income household has an actual income of 50% of the County median income, adjusted for household size. The cost of providing subsidies for all 100 at-risk units with potential to expire during the planning period to maintain subsidized rents assumes that none of the at-risk units are preserved. The cost of providing subsidies is based on a comparison between fair market rents (FMR) and rents that are affordable for low and very low- income families. Affordability is defined as rents that do not exceed 30% of a household's monthly income. The 1999 FMRs for Orange County, which encompasses the City of Tustin, are shown in Table HTM-30. TABLE HTM-30 1999 FAIR MARKET VALUE - ORANGE COUNTY Efficiency* I 1 Bedroom I 2Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom $645 $704 $871 $1,212 $1,349 *Efficiency = Studio Apartment FMRs include utility costs Source: Federal Re~ster, Vol. 59, #187, Rules and Re~xflations A comparison of Fair Market Rents with rents affordable to both low income and very low-income households indicates that a subsidy program would only apply to very low-income households. This is CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 49 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 due to the high income levels occurring in Orange County, which create higher income limits for low and very-low income households. As shown, Fair Market Rents are considered to be theoretically within the range of affordabflity for low-income households. Based on 1999 HCD income data for Orange County, affordable rents for low income households would theoretically be approximately $956 for a two person household in a one bedroom unit, and $1,195 for a four person household in a two or three bedroom unit. These numbers assume that families occupy the units and would be adjusted slightly for smaller or larger households in the same unit size. Under that scenario, based on the 1999 income data, the maximum affordable rent a two-person low income household can theoretically afford still exceeds the FMR for a two bedroom unit. Table HTM-30 shows FMRs in the area for two bedroom and smaller units are well below these levels. All 100 of the units in Tustin Gardens are offered to very low-income households and therefore are included in the subsidy analysis. Very low-income households earn less than 50% of median income. Based on 1999 HUD income data for Orange County, affordable rents for very low income households would be approximately $597 for a senior one bedroom, $682 for a family one bedroom, $854 for a two bedroom, and $922 for a three bedroom. To simplify the analysis, the one bedroom units at-risk in Tustin Gardens (100 one-bedroom units) are assumed to be senior units and comprised of one-person households. TABLE HTM-31 COST OF PROVIDING RENTAL SUBSIDY FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Affordable No. Total Unit FMR Rent 1 Units Difference Monthly Annual Senior 1 Bedroom $704 $597 100 $107 $10,700 $128,400 1 Bedroom $704 $682 0 $22 $0 $0 2 Bedroom $871 $854 0 $17 $0 $0 TOTAL $10,700 $128,400 ~ Affordable rent includes all utilities Source: 1999 HUD Income Limits for Orange Count/. The costs of providing a rental subsidy for all 100 at-risk units affordable to very low income households is shown in Table HTM-31 CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMONAND UM 50 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 to be approximately $10,700 per month and $128,400 annually. Actual subsidies required would vary from this estimate, as some households earn below the assumed 50% of the County median and therefore require higher subsidies, while other households may be comprised of a different number of persons and therefore, the assumed baseline affordable rent may be higher or lower, depending on household size. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 51 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 52 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 CONSTRAINTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT, IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF HOUSING This chapter examines the various constraints to housing development in Tustin. These include governmental constraints and non-governmental constraints GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Sections 65583(a)(4) of the Government Code require the Housing Element to include an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement or development of housing for all income levels. The following analysis fulfills this requirement. Land Use Controls The State Planning and Zoning Law (Sec. 65860) requires consistency of the zoning ordinances with the General Plan. After completion of the General Plan update, the City will analyze and reconcile any land use/zoning inconsistencies. The existing Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes single-family, multi-family and planned residential districts. The zoning ordinance is consistent with the Land Use Element in that areas of the City are designated for Single- Family, Multi-Family, and Planned Community districts. An analysis of residential development potential will be provided in the Housing Element. As shown in Table HTM-32, the City's existing General Plan allows a range of residential densities, from a range of 1 - 7 dwelling units per acre in the Low Density Residential designation up to 25 dwelling urdts per acre in the High Density Residential designation, which corresponds to the R-3 Multiple Family Residential District in the Zoning Code. Up to 10 units per net acre are permitted in the MHP Mobile home Park District. The Zoning Code standards in the residential zones establish a front yard setback requirement of a range between 15 and 20 feet, the side yard setback requirement is 5 feet for interior side yards and 10 feet for corner lots, and the rear yard setback requirement ranges between 5 and 25 feet. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 53 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 TABLE HTM-32 GENERAL PLAN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES CITY' OF TUSTIN Effective Dwelling Unit per Density Desi~;nation Description Acreage Range Low Density Detached single-family dwellings 5.61 1-7 Residential Medium Multi-family dwellings including 15.0 8-15 Density duplex, condominiums, townhomes, Residential and apartments. High Density Multi-family dwellings including 21.53 15-25 Residential duplex, condominiums, townhomes, and apartments. Mobile Home Mobilehomes 6.31 1-10 Park Planning Low, medium, and high-density 1 See Community residential developments, footnote. /PD) ! Maximum densit- r in dwelling units per acre is prescribed by individual Planned Commtmity Documents. Effective dwelling units per acre for low, medium, and high density residential are 4.49,11.8, and 17.39, respectively. Source: Cit~ of Tustin, Land Use Element, 1994. According to the General Plan build-out table (Table LU-3) in the Land Use Element, a total of 29,623 dwelling units are anticipated within the City limits. The Department of Finance (DOF) reports 24,531 dwelling units have been constructed (as of January 1999) within the City. Affordabihty can be determined by permitted density of development. According to the State Housing and Community Development Department, affordability standards are as follow: Very-Low income - minimum 25 units per acre Low-Income- minimum of 18 units per acre Moderate income- minimum 8 units per acre The General Plan Land Use Element's policy plan provides goals for future land development within the City. These goals and policies are reflections of the direction and images the City seeks for the future. The goals and policies include: CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 54 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 o Achieve balanced development; Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs; Revitalize older commercial, industrial, and residential development; o Promote economic expansion and diversification; Coordinate development with the provision of adequate public facilities and services; Strengthen the development character and mixture of uses in the Old Town/First Street area; and Promote an integrated business park character for the Pacific Center East area. Some suggest that low-income housing could be developed in the absence of land use controls related to density. It is true that the reduction or absence of land area requirements per housing units would result in lower land costs per unit, if all factors were constant. However, an analysis of development costs shows that the value of the land is related to its potential yield. For example, an acre of land that was authorized for four (4) dwelling units will be priced at a lower value than an acre of land authorized for six (6) dwelling units. The same analogy holds for multi-family sites whereby the land costs are related directly to the potential yield in terms of unit density. In the absence of arbitrary density standards of one and four acre lots, land use density controls are not accredited with being a constraint upon the development of low- and moderate-income housing. Tustin has a high percentage of multi-family units where only 30.6% of the housing stock is devoted to single-family detached units and 66.6% to attached and multi-family units. Current land use controls restrict development in single-family residential zones to one dwelling unit on parcels less than 10,000 square feet in the E-4 zone and parcels less than 7,200 square feet in the R-1 zone. However, the Planned Community District has authorized residential subdivisions with single-family lots of less than 5,000 square feet, which has significantly increased density potential to approximately 8-13 units per acre. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 55 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Within the multi-family district (R-3), a 35 foot height limitation and maximum 65% lot coverage precludes the development of high-rise housing projects. In the interest of protecting adjoining single-family lot owners, multi-family structures above 20 feet in height require a conditional use permit when the structures are within 150 feet of single-family residentially zoned lots. While these height limits may place some restrictions on housing development, these limits are designed to maintain compatibility of land use intensity and are commonly used by local governments as a development tool to further this ideal. Projects are also able to take advantage of the Planned Community District application process where special considerations are needed. Table HTM-33 is a summary of the City's residential zoning regulations. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 56 HOUSING ELEMENT NO VEMBER 2 002 Building Codes As required by State law, the City of Tustin has adopted the "1997 Uniform Building Code" and the "1997 Uniform Mechanical Code" published by the International Conference of Building Officials. Other codes adopted by the City include the 1997 Uniform Plumbing Code and the 1996 Electrical Code. While the codes are intended to protect the public from unsafe conditions they result in an increase in the cost of housing in various ways. The codes establish specifications for building materials and incorporate seismic safety standards that add to construction costs. The technical details of construction, requirements for state licensed contractors to perform the work, plan check, permit processing and field inspections all contribute to the increased cost of housing. In general, in states and counties where building codes have not been adopted, the cost of housing is less than comparable housing costs in California. Where individuals are permitted to construct shelter to their own specifications and within the limits of their individual construction skills, there will be a much greater proportion of low- income housing available than in those areas which adopt and enforce uniform building codes. It is noted, however, in those areas that have not adopted and enforced building codes, the low-cost housing has resulted in the creation of undesirable conditions that threaten the health and safety of the residents. Unquestionably, building codes are a governmental constraint to the construction of low-income housing. The question to be resolved is the conflicting values between health and safety and low-cost shelter. In 1988, the City of Tustin adopted the State Historic Code as required by State law. The State Historic Code requires relaxation of Uniform Building Code requirements for historic structures. This will reduce rehabilitation costs and may encourage rehabilitation of housing units which have historic value and preserve much needed housing units in the Old Town Area. Site Improvements The restricted and limited ability to tax property in an amount equal to the cost of services and public improvements has shifted site improvement costs to the developer who passes them on to the housing consumer. The philosophy is expressed that no new development should impose a financial liability upon the existing CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 59 HOUSING ELEMENT NO l/EMBER 2002 community residents. The voters have expressed this conviction through the adoption of growth control measures and Proposition 13. An increased awareness of environmental amenities creates a public demand for improvements of not only the building site but of the surrounding environment which consists of drainage channels, landscaped parkways, arterial roads to serve the area, recreation facilities, preservation of open space, school facilities, and recreation amenities, all of which add to the cost of housing. Site development standards and requirements in the City of Tustin include clearing and grading the land; dedication and improvement of public right-of-way to include paving, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drainage, street trees, streetlights and fire hydrants. On- site improvements include the under grounding of cable TV, water, sewer, gas, telephone and electric utilities. Subdivisions and multi- family developments are required to provide landscaping, drainage, perimeter wails, covered parking, landscaping, irrigation systems, and to submit materials and project design for review to assure architectural compatibility. Multi-family structures of 20 units or more are required to provide housing and parking accommodations for the disabled pursuant to State law. The review process is used to facilitate the land use and development compatibility objectives of the City and provide developers the opportunity to explore project alternatives, which could decrease development costs in the long run by avoiding costly mistakes. In the development of subdivisions, the developer is required to dedicate and improve roadways to serve the area; to provide or improve area drainage channels; to extend water, sewer and other utilities to the site; to dedicate land or pay in-lieu fees for parks and open space for private use in multiple-family projects; and to dedicate land or pay in-lieu fees for public facilities such as schools and fire stations. Developers are allowed to construct private streets or to modify street standards to reduce construction costs, and this encourages and will encourage affordability of housing units in East Tustin and MCAS Tustin. Installation of private streets or on-site improvements may be authorized in other areas to encourage affordable development. An additional cost of site development results from the installation of noise attenuation devices and materials as required by State law. Perimeter walls and/or berms are required for subdivisions to reduce the noise levels from external surface sources such as railroads, freeways and arterial highways for sites that are located within 65 dB (CNEL) Noise Levels. Some of CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 60 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 these costs can be reduced by the use of housing set-aside funds in City Redevelopment areas and special State and Federal grant funds to produce low- and moderate-income housing units. Significant public facilities will be needed to accommodate the proposed housing development at MCAS Tustin. According to the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan, water, sewer, storm drainage, electrical, natural gas, and telephone and cable backbone systems that serve future housing sites will need to be constructed. All housing sites will also have to pay their proportionate share for new backbone utilities, roads, and traffic improvements required in conjunction with development of the MCAS Tustin site and as mitigation for the adopted Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-Tustin. The constraints upon the construction of low-income housing due to the cost of site improvements are a question of values. Is there a justification for infrastructure improvements and environmental control requirements that create community amenities beyond the bare minimum necessary to protect the basic health, safety and general welfare? Housing could be developed without the necessity of paved streets, but neither HUD nor private financial institutions would finance such developments. Additionally, Federal and regional air quality standards would preclude such developments. It is contended that equity requires new developments to pay the cost of site improvements in direct proportion to the benefits received; however, they should not be required to bear all of the cost of new community-wide facilities. If it is acknowledged that new developments should pay the costs of site improvements, the challenge is one of reducing these costs through more cost-effective site planning or use of housing set-aside funds for those projects within redevelopment areas, or special State and Federal grant funds. Fees and Exactions By law, the City's building and development fees are restricted to the costs of performing the services. The building and planning fee schedules of the City of Tustin were last revised in 1999. These fees still remain considerably below those of surrounding communities in the County. The City's fee schedule is provided in Table HTM-34, which illustrates the fees and exactions that may be assessed to a CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 61 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 residential building development project in comparison to other nearby communities. These fees may be waived by the City Council for projects where extraordinary benefits are derived such as low- income housing projects, but are typically required to offset City expenses. As noted, fees are substantially lower than those charged by other cities and the County of Orange. The fee schedule adopted by the City of Tustin has a minimal impact upon the cost of housing within the City. The argument can be made that the cost of inspecting and serving new developments exceeds the fees and revenues that are exacted for these developments. This is justified as a public service to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the future inhabitants and is partially borne by the general revenues of the City. Additional revenue sources are increasingly important since the passing of Proposition 13. Recognizing that housing for the elderly and low-income families is a community objective, the park land dedication ordinance provides the option to the Council to waive these fees for qualifying projects. The City might also consider exploring fast-tracking (preferential scheduling) or fee waivers for critical projects such as those providing affordable housing or housing which addresses special housing needs. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 62 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 TABLE HTM-34 COMPARATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEE SUMMARY x Fee Char~ges Planning; Fees I Tustin I Anaheim I Costa Mesa I Orange Environmental Initial Determination $95 $430 N/A $230 Negative Declaration $125 N/A $295 N/A EIR Processing-minor $2,500 $75/hr time and Consultant cost $2,100 dep + EIR Processing-major $4,000 materials + 10% hourly rate Planning General Plan Amendment $985 $2,350 + $25/ac $45/unit $2,100 dep + after 1st acre hourly rate Zone Change $950 $940 + $24/ac $20/unit $885 +$10/ac after 1st acre Tentative Tract Map $1,205 $785 + $27/lot $13/unit $1,100 + $25/ac Design Review $985 N/A N/A $280 Planned Development Review N/A N/A $48/unit N/A Conditional Use Permits and N/A $660 + $75/code N/A N/A Variances waiver + $27/acre (>5/acres) Engineering & Subdivision Finial Tract ~Iap $43/unit $380 + $96/hr Provided by $54-$112/hr County Sewer Plan Check $31/unit $350/ac + N/A $54-$112/hr $50/hr Water Plan Check $106/unit $64/hr N/A $54-$112/hr Stormdrain Plan Check $296.91/unit $96/hr $100-$215/unit $54-$112/hr Street Plan Check $296.91/unit $64/hr $54-$112/hr Surface Drainage Plan Check N/A N/A N/A N/A Grading Plan Check $754/ac + N/A $50/hr N/A $54-$112/hr Capital Facilities & Connections W~ter (fixture units) $400/unit $663/unit N/A $150/unit Sewer (fixture units) $600/unit $2,360/unit $3,000/ unit $75/unit Sanitation District Annex N/A $582/unit N/A N/A Drainage (one time fee to $984/unit $1,000/acre $650-$4,637 property) Transportation Corridor $3,831- Zone A $2,725/unit $2,626/unit $2,310/unit $2,725-Zone B Signal Assessment N/A $88/unit N/A N/A Park Facilities Fair Market Value $4,316.83/unit $5,481.72/unit $2,310 of land School Facilities $5,125/unit $7,012/unit $4,600/unit $5,125/unit Tustin, Santa Ana, and Irvine ($2.05/SF) Unified School District Orange Count/Sanitation District $2,165/unit N/A N/A N/A ~ Comparative fees based on hypothetical 10 acre subdivision of 50 detached units at permitted density of 5 dwelling units per acre. "Other fees" vary considerably by jurisdiction and are not included in this analysis Source: City of Tustin, 1999; Building Industry Association, 1999 Land Development Fee Survey for Orange Count/, 1999. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 63 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Processing and Permit Procedures The City recognizes that the myriad of agencies and permit approvals required for a development results in a time-consuming and expensive process. It is documented that the value of land will double when all necessary permits have been obtained for a construction project. State law establishes maximum time limits for project approvals and City policies provide for the minimum processing time necessary to comply with legal requirements and review procedures. A standard chart is provided with every design review application that outlines the procedures and requirements for project approvals. The Community Development Department serves as the coordinating agency to process development applications for the approval of other in-house departments such as Fire, Police, Public Works/Engineering, and Parks and Recreation. These departments work together to simultaneously review projects to ensure a timely response to developers and act as the City's Design Review Committee. Pre-application conferences with the Community Development Department provide the developer with information related to standards and requirements applicable to the project. For the more complicated development projects in the Special Management Areas, Specific Plans provide a standard Design Review Process. Application packages are provided to developers and include the processing chart and copies of pertinent information such as street improvement construction standards, subdivision and landscape requirements that aid developers in the preparation of their plans. All projects are processed through plan review in the order of submission. Recognizing that profit margins are reduced and risks are increased by processing delays, the City has assigned priority to plan review and permit issuance for low-income housing projects. Additionally, contracts for plan check services provide additional staff to process projects in a timely fashion. If a complete application is submitted, plans are simultaneously reviewed by all Design Review Committee members and plan checking departments rather than one agency reviewing plans at a time. This process also pro- vides for a "one-stop" processing system which is required by State law in an effort to aid the development process, reduce confusion and minimize development costs. Additionally, for projects of significant benefit to the low-income community, such costs can be CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 64 HOUSING ELEMENT NO VE, MBER 2002 waived by the City Council or the use of redevelopment set-aside funds can further reduce or eliminate these costs for low-income projects. Workload Another governmental constraint is the number of staff and amount of staff time available for processing development projects. Since the workload is determined by outside forces (economy and market for housing), a shortage of staff time may occur during strong economic conditions which could lead to increased processing time for development projects. MARKET CONSTRAINTS The availability of housing is affected by the interrelationships within the market place of price, income of buyer, and interest rates. The non-governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement or development of housing in the City relate primarily to low- and moderate-income families. High-income families have the option of selecting housing accommodations that meet their preferences. Since environmental amenities such as hillsides with views and beach access attract high-value developments, high- income families gravitate to the foothills and beach communities. The provision for housing opportunity to all income segments is further emphasized in the East Tustin development whereby single-family attached and detached homes are proposed for moderate- and higher-income households. Additionally, multi-family projects such as apartments and condominiums in East Tustin are provided for the low- and moderate-income groups. A potentially significant constraint on housing prices is the difference between the cost to construct units versus the actual price charged to the buyer. In Orange County, where the market demand for housing is high, the price of units does not necessarily correlate to the cost to build the unit. Therefore, regardless of the decrease in land use and other governmental controls, the external market typically drives the cost of housing rather than the cost of construction driving the price. Financing Interest rates can have an impact on housing costs. Some mortgage financing is variable rate, which offers an initial lower interest rate CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 65 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 than fixed financing. The ability of lending institutions to raise rates ' to adjust for inflation will cause existing households to overextend themselves financially, and create situations where high financing costs constrain the housing market. An additional obstacle for the first-time homebuyer is the minimum down-payment required by lending institutions. Even if Tustin homebuyers are able to provide a 3 percent down- payment and obtain an 8.5 percent 30-year loan (loan rate for FHA or VA guaranteed loans for June 2000), monthly mortgage payments on median priced single-family detached homes in the City place such homes out of the reach of moderate and lower-income households in the City. At a 8.5 percent interest rate, monthly mortgage payments on median priced condominiums and townhouses can place such units out of reach of Tustin's low and very low income households (see Tables HTM-23 and HTM-25). The greatest impediment to homeownership, however, is credit worthiness. According to the Federal Housing Authority, lenders consider a person's debt-to-income ratio, cash available for downpayment, and credit history, when determining a maximum loan amount. Many financial institutions are willing to significantly decrease downpayment requirements and increase loan amounts to persons with good credit rating. Persons with poor credit ratings may be forced to accept a higher interest rate or a loan amount insufficient to purchase a house. Poor credit rating can be especially damaging to lower-income residents, who have fewer financial resources with which to qualify for a loan. The FHA is generally more flexible than conventional lenders in its qualifying guidelines and allows many residents to re-establish a good credit history. Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to report lending activity by census tract. Analysis of available HMDA reports does not indicate documented cases of underserved lower income census tracts in the City. Profit, Marketing and Overhead Developer profits generally comprise 8 to 12% of the selling price of single-family homes and slightly lower for condominiums. However, in certain areas such as East Tustin where market demand is high in CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 66 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 comparison to the available housing supply, developers are able to command higher prices and realize greater margins of profit. Rising marketing and overhead 'costs have contributed to the rising costs of housing. Inflation has spurred much of the increase in marketing and overhead. Intense competition among developers has necessitated more advertising, more glamorous model homes and more expensive marketing strategies to attract buyers. The factor having the greatest impact on the price of land is location. To a lesser degree, the price of land is governed by supply, demand, yield, availability, cost of the infrastructure, and the readiness for development as related to governmental permits. Within the developed infill areas of the City, there is a scarcity of land available for residential development. The supply of land is largely limited to the East Tustin Specific Plan area. Land zoned for commercial or industrial development is not appropriate for residential development. The development of additional housing accommodations within the urbanized area will require the demolition and/or redevelopment of existing structures, since there are very few vacant lots remaining. Based upon recent cost information about new development projects in East Tustin, land costs are approximately $18 per gross square foot for single-family zoned property and $28 per square foot for land zoned for high-density (i.e., R-3) development (Source: The Irvine Company). The unavailability of land within the developed areas of the City and the price of land on the fringes are constraints adding to the cost of housing and pricing housing out of the reach of low- and moderate- income families. Cost of Construction One important market-related factor in the actual cost for new housing is construction costs. These costs are influenced by many factors such as the cost of labor, building materials, and site preparation. The 1998 International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) estimates that the cost of residential wood frame construction averages $61.10 per square foot and reaches as high as $83.90 per square foot. Therefore, the costs attributed to construction alone for a CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 67 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 typical 2,200 square foot, wood frame home would be at minimum $134,420. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 68 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL ME, MORAND UM 69 HOUSING ELEMENT NO I/EMBER 2002 ENERGY CONSERVATION As the price of power continues to rise, households have through necessity been devoting more of the household income to energy cost. This condition has further eroded the affordability of housing. No relief is in sight, as one representative from Southern California Edison reinforced in a recent news article: "higher rates are necessary to assure reliable supplies of electricity in the years ahead." There are energy conservation measures the City of Tustin can promote and others that are mandated by State laws. The State of California has adopted energy conservation standards for residential building in Title 25 of the California Administrative Code. Title 25 applies to new residential construction or an addition to an existing housing unit. Active solar systems for water heating can be encouraged but they are still rather expensive and can only be used as a back-up to an electric or gas system. They are cost efficient in the long run but pose a short-term impact to affordable housing. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 70 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 71 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS To develop appropriate programs to address the housing issues identified in this Housing Element Update, the City of Tustin has reviewed the housing programs adopted as part of its 1989 and 1994 Housing Elements, and evaluated the effectiveness of these programs in delivering housing services. By reviewing the progress in implementation of the adopted programs, the effectiveness of the last element, and the continued appropriateness of these identified programs, a comprehensive housing program strategy has been developed. The following section reviews the progress in implementation of the programs, the effectiveness of the 1989 Element to date, and the continued appropriateness of the identified programs. The results of the analysis provided the basis for developing the comprehensive housing program strategy for the future planning period, as well as goals for the planning period in progress. PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE 1989 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Table HTM-35 presents a comparison of the quantified objectives of the previous element and actual achievements since 1989. Table HTM-35 contains a list of projects by program area during the 1989- 2000 period. Tables HTM-36 and HTM-37 summarize the performance of the 1989 Element's goals and objectives. The time period covered in this analysis is July 1989 to June 30, 1994, July 1994 to December 1997, and January 1998 to January 1, 2000. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 TABLE HTM-35 SUMMARY TABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS: 1989-2000 New Construction Rehab/Preservation Housing Assistance Income Group Goal~ Actual GoaP Actual GoaP Actual Very-Low 10 713 1,548 Low 2,194 715 556 Moderate 2,081 1,049 31 Above Moderate 1,409 80 -- Total 5,010 5,694 1040 4,287 201 2,135 ~ Although goals were not allocated to specific income group, the City attempted to utilize RI-INA percentages to fulfil RHNA objectives. Source: The Cit~ of Tustin, Housing Element, 1997; Effectiveness of Housin{~ Element Pro~rams, 2000. REVIEW OF PAST PERFORMANCE State law establishes a five-year cycle regulating housing element updates. In compliance with the SCAG cycle, the Tustin Housing Element was updated in 1989 at which time it was found to be in compliance with State law, and was updated again in 1994. In 1997, the City of Tustin initiated a comprehensive General Plan update, and the Housing Element was again updated to accommodate the MCAS Reuse Plan and to ensure consistency with other General Plan Elements, as well as to address recent changes in State law. These amendments were adopted on January 16, 2001. Review of Past Housing Element Objectives The 1989 SCAG Regional Housing Allocation Model indicated a new construction need in Tustin by 1994 of 2,085 unit~, of which 390 units were for very low income households, 488 for low income, 484 for moderate income and 724 upper income. The following discussion is a brief highlight of the progress, effectiveness and appropriateness of the past Housing Element Objectives. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM HOUSING ELEMENT NO VEMBER 2 002 O 0 0 0 TABLE HTM 37 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES 1989 - 2000 CITY OF TUSTIN Unit NEW CONSTRUCTION Adequate Sites 5,000 5,546 2,187 2,074 1,285 Granny Flats 10 3 2 1 New Owner Housing Replacement Housing 145 3 8 6 7 124 Subtotal 5,010 5,694 10 2,194 2,081 1,409 REHABILITATION Housing for the Disabled (retrofit) 25 41 21 20 Code Violations 4 1,443 288 188 967 Rental Rehabilitation Loans/Grants 80 5 346 210 96 40 Multi-Family Acquisition/Rehab/ 20 64 2 4 5 5 50 Conversion Housing Rehabilitation (Single Family) 80 5 42 14 19 9 Subtotal 100 3,766 537 328 1,021 50 PRESERVATION East Tustin Affordable Housing 100L 174 52 123 Program 500M Orange Gardens 160 150 16 134 Affordable Senior Housing 20 112 112 Senior Board & Care 20 18 18 Cultural Resources 25 58 28 30 Tustin Gardens 100 100 Subtotal 925 513 168 387 28 30 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 1st Time Homebuyer Down Payment 50 8 2 6 Assistance Loans Mortgage Credit Certificates 48 14 24 10 Section 8 Rental Voucher Assistance 10 1,410 1,410 Shared Housing Referrals 25 115 115 Deed Restrictions 100 538 108 415 15 Homeless Housing Partnership Program Emergency Shelter 16 16 16 Subtotal 201 2,135 1,548 556 31 OTHER Lot Consolidation 25 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Flexibility in Housing Design 3,641 N/A N/A N/A N/A Tenant Protection 20 3,791 N/A N/A N/A N/A CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 94 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 TABLE HTM 37 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES 1989- 2000 CITY OF TUSTIN Quantified Unit T~,pe/Descri~tion Obiectives Accomplishments 1 Ver~ Low Low Moderate U~er Permit Processing 500 54 N/A N/A N/A N/A Energy Conservation 6,878 N/A N/A N/A N/A Annual Reports 5 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A Fee Waivers All Requests 26 N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal N/A N/A Total 6,236 14,108 2,263 3,465 3,161 1,489 RHNA (1989) 2,085 390 488 484 724 Number of Units. 2 Laguna Gardens. 3 Shea Homes (Tustin Groves). 4 Represents code inspections; 1 judgement lien. 5 A goal of 80 units was established for all rehabilitation and activities, inclusive of single family and multi-family rehabilitation. Therefore, the 80 units is only reflected in the quantified objective total one time. Sources: (1) Effectiveness of Housing Programs 1989 - 2000, City of Tustin; (2) Five Year Implementation Plan for the Town Center and South Central Redevelopment Proiect Areas for Fiscal Years 2000 - 2001 to 2004 - 2005 CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 95 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 APPENDIX A AFFORDABILITY GAP ANALYSIS CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 96 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 97 HOUSING ELEMENT NO VEMBER 2 002 APPENDIX B REFERENCES CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 100 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 REFERENCES A. Documents 1. City of Tustin Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, February 2000. 2. 1990 Census Report. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 3. California State Department of Finance, 1990, 1999. , Demographic Profile and Survey of Homeless Persons Seeking Services in Orange County. The Research Committee of the Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force, 1999. 5. Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 1999. 6. City of Tustin, Zoning Code. 7. City of Tustin, General Plan, as amended January 16, 2001. 8. Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Old Town Market Analysis, October 16, 1991. . Second Five-Year Implementation Plan for The Town Center and South Central Redevelopment Project Areas (FY 2000-01 to 2004-2005), Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency, January 2000. 9. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy for Fiscal Years 2000-2001 to 2009-2010, Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency, February, 2000. 10. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-Tustin (Program EIS/EIR for MCAS-Tustin), January 16, 2001. 11. City Council Staff Report, January 16, 2001. 12. Response to Comments, Final Volume 2 and 3 of Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-Tustin. · 13. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan, October 1996 and September 1998 Amendments. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 102 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 14. Masterplan Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, DON 1989. 15. State of Califomia, Department of HCD, Web-site. B. Persons and Organizations o Mary Ann Barajas, Manager Christian Temporary Shelter, Tustin (714) 771-2969 . Barbara Bishop, Receptionist Aldergates (714) 544-3653 o Kathy Novak The Sheepfold Shelter, Tustin (714) 669-9569 4. Susan Oakson, Executive Director Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force , Christine A. Shingleton, Assistant City Manager Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency (714) 573-3107 . Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Community Development Department, Tustin (714) 573-3031 o Lois E. Jeffrey 701 S. Parker St., Suite 8000 Orange, CA 92868-4760 (714) 558-7000 o Jim Draughon, Redevelopment Program Manager Tusfin Community Redevelopment Agency (714) 573-3121 o Justina Willkom, Associate Planner Community Development Department, Tustin (714) 573-3174 CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 103 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 10. Grace Schuth, Receptionist Tustin Presbyterian Church (714) 544-7070 11. Officer G. Vallevienie Tustin Police Department (714) 573-3200 12. Jean Williams, Receptionist St. Cecilia's Church (714) 544-3131 CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 104 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 APPENDIX C MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN TUSTIN CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 105 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 106 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 LIST OF MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN TUSTIN, CA Company/Address/Telephone No. Emp. Steelcase Inc - (714) 259-8000 1123 Warner Avenue - Tustin 92780 Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (714) 259-1220 1100 Valencia Avenue - Tustin, 92780 Sun Health Care Group - (714) 544-5553 2742 Dow Avenue - Tustin 92780 Texas Instruments - (714) 573-6000 14351 Myford Road - Tustin 92780 Silicon Systems- (714) 731-7110 14351 Myford Road - Tustin 92780 MacPherson Enterprises - (714) 832-3300 2 Auto Center Drive - Tustin 92782 Pargain Technology - (714) 832-9922 14402 Franklin Avenue - Tustin 92780 Cherokee International - (714) 598-2000 2841 Dow - Tustin 92780 Toshiba America Medical Systems - (714) 730-5000 2441 Michelle - Tustin 92780 Crazy Shirts - (714) 832-5883 2911 Dow Avenue - Tustin 92780 Printrak International - (714) 238-2000 1250 N. Tustin - Tustin 92780 Revere Transducers - (714) 731-1234 14192 Franklin Avenue - Tustin 92780 Tustin Hospital - (714) 669-5883 14662 Newport Boulevard - Tustin 92780 Pacific Bell Mobile Services - (714) 734-7300 2521 Michelle Drive 2na Floor - Tustin 92780 Fireman's Fund Insurance - (714) 669-0911 17542 17th Street - Tustin 92780 Safeguard Business Systems - (714) 730-8112 14661 Franklin - Tustin 92780 Dynachem electronic Materials - (714) 730-4200 2631 Michelle Drive - Tustin 92780 Vitalcom Inc. - (714) 546-0147 15222 Del Arno Avenue - Tustin 92780 Smartflex Systems Inc. - (714) 838-8737 14312 Franklin Avenue - Tustin 92780 Duncan electronics - (714) 258-7500 15771 Red Hill - Tustin 92780 1,100 1,038 985 56O 550 54O 5OO 33O 3OO 245 204 2OO 2OO 2OO 190 175 135 130 127 125 Quality Systems - (714) 731-7171 113 17822 E. 17th Street, Suite 210 - Tustin 92780 Information provided by the Tustin Chamber of Commerce, 1999. 399 E1 Camino Real - Tustin, CA 92780 - 1714) 544-5341 Product/Service Office Furniture Manufacturer Healthcare Semiconductors Integrated Circuits Auto Dealerships Telecommunications Power Supplies Distributor, Medical Equipment Apparel Fingerprinting Systems Manufacturer Hospital Telecommunications Insurance Accounting Services Chemicals Medical computer Networks Electronic Assemblies Sensors Manufacturing Medical/Dental Computer Systems CITY OF TUSTIN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 107 HOUSING ELEMENT NOVEMBER 2002 Attachment 3 Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3838 and 3839 RESOLUTION NO. 3838 A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FIND THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 4, 2002, IS ADEQUATE FOR THE REVISION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve 'as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ao Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) State Guidelines Section 15152, the City of Tustin staff completed an Initial Study and determined that all effects associated with the implementation of the Revised Housing Element Update were evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR for MCAS, Tustin, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitiqation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasibl~, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and previously adopted On February 4, 2002, prior to adopting the Housing Element Update, the City Council reviewed and considered the Program EIS/EIR for MCAS-Tustin, the Initial Study for the Housing Element Update, the Planning Commission' minutes, and the comments and responses thereto. The City Council found and certified that the Program EIS/EIR for MCAS, Tustin was adequate under CEQA as an environmental document for the Housing Element Update and was adequate, complete, and prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the State Guidelines. The assessment that the Program EIS/EIR for MCAS was adequate under CEQA for the Housing Element Update reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis. Bo On February 4, 2002, the City Council adopted the Housing Element Update. The State Department of Housing and Community Development has reviewed the Housing Element Update and recommended revisions. The revision to the Housing Element Update makes clarifying and technical changes that do not affect the prior environmental determination. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15152, the City of Tustin has reviewed the revisions to the Housing Element Update and has determined that all effects associated with the Resolution No. 3838 Page 2 revisions to the Housing Element Update were adequately evaluated when the City considered adoption of the Housing Element Update, on February 4, 2002, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified~ significant effects would occur, 'that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. The revision to the Update makes clarifying and technical changes that do not affect the prior environmental determination. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find that the environmental determination for the Housing Element Update approved on February 4, 2002, is adequate ~for the revision to the Housing Element Update. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 22"d day of July, 2002. DOUGLASS S.. DAVERT Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I,' ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that l am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3838 passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of July, 2002. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 3839 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 02-001, REVISING THE ADOPTED TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A, That California Government Code Section 6558'8 requires each City review as freqUently as appropriate and revise its Housing Element as appropriate. B. That the City prepared a Housing Element Update pursuant to Government Code Section 65588 and incorporated comments received on the draft from the State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"). C. That the City utilized the most recent available data in completing the Housing Element Update and that the City has worked diligently with HCD to produce an effective Housing Element. D, That in anticipating completion of the Housing Element Update, the City progressed as follows: August 5, 1999 Sent Request for Proposals (RFP) to fifteen (15) consulting firms to prepare an update for the City of Tustin. October 4, 1999 The City Council authorized the Planning Center to prepare the City's Housing Element Update. Between October 1999 and September 2000 SCAG completed Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process and assigned RHNA numbers to cities within its jurisdiction. SCAG adopted Final RHNA on November 2, 2000. September 29, 2000 The City completed its first draft Housing Element Update for the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) review. November 16, 2000 HCD provided a comment letter and requested revisions be made to the Housing Element Update. Resolution No. 3839 Page 2 Eo Fo January through December 2001 The City worked with the Planning Center to address HCD comments and corrections. The Planning Center experienced staff changes which delayed the completion of the Draft Housing Element. City staff took over the project and completed the revised Housing Element in-house. January 3,2002 The citY sent the revised Housing Element incorporating HCD's requested revisions to HCD. January 14,2002 The Planning Commission conducted a workshop to familiarize the public with the purpose and intent of the Housing Element Update. January 28, 2002 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Housing Element Update and the environmental document and recommended that the City Council certify the environmental document and adopt the Housing Element Update as proposed. February 4,2002 The City Council adopted the environmental documents and the Housing Element Update. February 11,2002 The City sent HCD a copy of the adopted Housing Element. March 7, 2002 HCD provided the City with review comments and corrections. Between March 7, 2002 and June 2002 The City worked diligently with HCD through informal phone conversations and submissions via fax to address HCD comments and corrections. June 14, 2002 The City sent the revised Housing Element for HCD review. July 3,2002 HCD approved the revised draft Housing Element pending Council adoption of the amended Housing Element. That a public workshop was held on January 14, 2002, to familiarize the general public with the purpose and intent of the Housing Element Update. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on January 28, 2002, by the Planning Commission to consider and provide further opportunity for the general public to comment on the proposed Housing Element Update. Resolution No. 3839 Page 3 S. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on February 4, 2002, by the City Council to consider and provide further opportunity for the general public to comment on the proposed Housing Element Update. H. That the City Council considered environmental documentation and adopted the Housing Element Update on February 4, 2002. That HCD reviewed the adopted Housing Element Update and recommended revisions; the City prepared revisions, and the revisions were approved by HCD. J, That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on july 22, 2002, by the Planning Commission to consider and provide further opportUnity for the general public to comment on the proposed revisions to the Housing Element Update. K. That pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15152, the City of Tustin has completed environmental review and determined that all effects associated with the revisions to the Housing Element 'Update were adequately evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR'for MCAS Tustin as determined by the City Council on February 4, 2002, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. The revision to the Update makes clarifying and technical changes that do not affect the prior environmental determination. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve an amendment to the General Plan Amendment 02-001, revising the Tustin Housing Element Update as identified in "Exhibit A" attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 22nd day of July, 2002. ~~ ~. ~ DOUGLASS S. DAVERT ~ Chairperson 15'LIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 3839 Page 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that l am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3839 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of July, 2002. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Attachment 4 Replacement Housing Calculation Ii Attachment 5 Mr. Spix Letter Dated August 5, 2002 and City Response to Mr. Spix Comment Letter Richard L. Spix, Esq. 1665 E. Fourth Street, Ste. 214 Santa Ana, California 92701 TEL: (714) 625-0084 FAX: (714) 285-0028 August 5, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members of Tustin City Council 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RE: REVISION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Honorable Councilperson: This letter is to object to the City's approval of the above revised housing element on behalf of my client Juan Garcia. Mr. Garcia is an Hispanic low/moderate income citizen taxpayer of the City of Tustin. Please consider this letter as part of. the record of proceedings related to the administrative processing of the project. Referenced City documents and categories of :City documents are incorporated as though fully set forth herein and are requested to be made a part of any administrative record. Summary The City will abuse its discretion if it approves the housing element as proposed in that it has failed to proceed in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, and the evidence does not support the findings. Additional amendments are required in order that the housing element adequately identify needs, sites, and programs for low income housing. Discussion The Housing Element of the General Plan of the City is inadequate and inconsistent with the other elements of the General Plan. It fails to comply with the requirements of the Government Code including Section 65302 et seq. The City has not conformed its zoning, land use element, and general plan to the uses and policies proposed in the revised housing element. Without an adequate and internally consistent General Plan, the City cannot make the findings required in order to approve the revised housing element. For example, but not by way of limitation: The need analysis is deficient. The City has removed about 150 affordable rental units, and displaced low/mod families, during the approvals of the Soup Plantation Project, its bond financed condominium developments, and other demolitions in the City since 1994. The City does not adequately correct its need for low and moderate income housing based on those adverse actions during the last planning period. The identified sites for low/mod housing are inadequate in that: 1) the City has failed to produce any low income units historically in its planned community developments, 2) the one site (area 25) of the MCAS with densities which are capable of producing low/mod housing can only presently contain less than half of the need for such housing, and 3) the "infill" sites identified in -1- Table H-15 are largely unusable and unavailable as is set forth in the Declaration of A1 Scales lodged herewith. Look ak She pictures, staff is proposing to construct low income housing adjacent to large chemical pressure tanks, against freeway sound walls, and on sites where new commercial development is now occurring or has already occurred. The table is an embarrassment and a sham. You should direct staff to identify real, practical sites and not just continue to try to bamboozle State HCD, who must necessarily review the City planing documents from Sacramento. Because of the lack of available alternative sites, additional high ~lensity parcels may be required to be located on the MCAS property in order to comply with state law. This would have a positive impacts of increasing the feasibility of affordable housing projects. It would also locate low income housing near to employment, thereby reducing traffic impacts of MCAS build out. The largest number of parcels in Table H-15 is owned by John and Mary Prescott. Attached hereto as Exhibits are true and correct copies of the assessor's data screen print outs for the parcels identified in that Table. The concentration of ownership in the parcels on Table H-15 has not been identified as a constraint to their availability. The City has not previously identified the Prescott family as a significant affordable housing "resource" and it appears that the family is not willing to become the City's largest future provider of low income housing or to dedicate their holdings to income, rent, or resale restrictions required for low income affordability. Governmental assistance programs for mixed use developments involve additional complexities in the construction process that are not identified or addressed by the revision. The proposed revision also lacks adequaie'programs for low and moderate income housing. The programs do not earmark any funds to the undeserved low income segment of the community. Scarce program funds may continue to be siphoned off for assistance to projects affordable only for the upper segment of Mod II income families (Earning 120% of about $60,000 county median income) without relationship to the need in the community. The bond financed condominium project files show that the projects do not even contain resale controls, yielding only a "one time" Mod II unit, at best. Upon unrestricted private resale of the unit, any affordability may not be conserved. Governmental subsidies, through tax losses on the income to bond investors, becomes merely a marketing tool for near-market-rate condominium developers. This scheme does not result in the provision of housing for all income segments of the community. Additionally, the MCAS contains 1537 dwelling units that had been available to the largely low/mod income military personnel. The housing element contains no discussion of conservation of, or interim availability of those units for low/mod income housing and merely seeks to exchange previously available low/mod housing for low density luxury housing. Conclusion I urge your disapproval of the revision. Staff should be directed to appropriately identify sites and target programs to meet the low income housing need of the City. Without your leadership, the low income housing need in your community will remain unsatisfied. The important role of actually getting low income housing projects on the ground can only be filled by your vote. Si~¢frely, / 1~ /~ Richard L. Spix ! ' Attorney at Law -2- Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5:0utput F6:Jump (Image) F8:Done PCL: 50108109 ONR: CUETO, MARCO LND: 267634 C/O: IMP: PP: 9THR ?OT: NET: DISPLAY: OR3LNGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ TYPE .. 1 86366 MAIL:Il82 WASS ST TUSTIN ~ CA SITE:il82 WASS ST EXEI: KEY: PROP TYP: BAS L2002 ZIP:9278028688 354000 EXE2: KEY: TR3~:13104 BAS I2002REC#:R01546883 354000 DES:IRVINE SUB LOT 331 BLK 13 NWLY 165 FT NELY 95 FT S DES:LY1/4 Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5:Output F6:Jump (Image) F8:Done PCL: 43240111 ONR:STATE OF CALIFORNIA LND: IMP: PP: OTHR TOT: NET: IDISPLAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ TYPE:8 62246 C/O: MAIL:2501 PULLMAN ST SANTA ANA CA SITE: EXEi: 62246 KEY:X PROP TYP: BAS L1992 ZIP:9270555111 62246 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13000 BAS I REC#:R91300752 DES:IRVINE SUB BLK 11 LOT 35 POR OF LOT DES: Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3.'Format (Sort) F5:Output F6:Jump (Image) F8:Done PCL: 43240112 ONR:BLUE BUOY SWIM SCHOOL LND: IMP: PP: OTHR TOT: NET: IDISPLAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ TYPE:2 270216 C/O: MAIL:31158 FLYING CLOUD LAGUNA ~IGUEL CA SITE: EXEi: KEY: PROP TYP: BAS L1998 ZIP:9267727155 270216 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13000 BAS I1998REC#:R97608725 270216 DES:IRVINE SUB BLK 11 LOT 35 POR OF LOT DES: Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5:Output F6:Jump (Image) F8:Done I DISPLAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ PCL: 50108110 ONR:HUNDEBY, CHAD WILHELMY, L JEAN MARIE TYPE:3 LND: IMP: PP: OTHR TOT: NET: 135252 C/O: 78030 MAIL:12881 ELIZABETH WAY TUSTYN CA SITE:12881 ELIZABETH WY EXEi: 7000 KEY:7 PROP TYP: BAS L2000 ZIP:9278028700 213282 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13104 BAS I2000REC#:R00407576 206282 DES:IRVINE SUB LOT 331 BLK 13 SWLY 66 FT NELY 161 FT N DES:WAY1/2 NWLY1/2 SWAY1/2 SELY1/2 Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5:Output F6:Jump (Image) F8:Done PCL: 50108112 0NR:G&L TUSTIN LLC LND: IMP: PP: OTHR TOT: NET: IDISPLAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ TYPE:3 60085 C/O: MAIL:SUITE 1400 11755 WILSHIRE BLV9 LOS ANGELES CA SITE:12911 ELIZABETH WY EXEI: KEY: PROP TYP: BAS L1999 ZIP:9002515388 60085 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13104 BAS I1999REC#:R98238531 60085 DES:IRVINE SUB LOT 331 BLK 13 SWLY 66 FT NELY 293 FT N DES:WLY1/2 NWLY1/2 S WLY1/2 SELY1/2 Fl:Help F2..Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5:Output F6.'Jump (Image) F8:Done PCL: 50108111 ONR:BOZARTH, MILDRED L LND: IMP: PP: OTHR TOT: NET: IDISPLAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ 15754 C/O: TYPE:i 29360 MAIL:12901 ELIZABETH WAY TUSTIN CA SITE:12901 ELIZABETH WY EXEI: 7000 KEY:7 PROP TYP:- BAS L1975 ZIP:9278028022 45114 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13104 BAS I1975REC#:R97232426 38114 DES:IRVINE SUB LOT 331 BLK 13 NELY 293 FT NWLY1/2 NWLY DES:l/2 SWLY1/2 SELY 1/2 -EX SWLY 66 FT & NELY 161FT- Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5:0utput F6:Jump (Image) F8:Done PCL: 50108119 ONR:LANG VERST HOMES INC LND: IMP: PP: OTHR TOT: NET: I~ISPLAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ TYPE:I 377901 C/O: 81099 MAIL:12882 ELIZABETH WAY TUSTIN CA SITE:12882 ELIZABET~ WY EXEi: KEY: PROP TYP: BAS L2002 ZIP:9278028711 459000 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13101 BAS I2002REC#:R01401108 459000 DES:IRVINE SUB LOT 331 BLK 13 SWLY 132 FT NELY 227 FT DES:SELY1/2 NWLY1/2 SWLY1/2 SELY1/2 Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5:Output F6..Jump (Image) FS:Done PCL: 50108118 ONR:CORTESE, JAMES R LND: IMP: PP: OTHR TOT: NET: IDISPLAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1-- TYPE:i 19510 C/O: 55857 MAIL:12884 ELIZABETH WAY TUSTIN CA SITE:12884 ELIZABETH WY EXEi: 7000 KEY:7 PROP TYP: BAS L1976 ZIP:9278028711 75367 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13101 BAS I1976REC#:R01693252 68367 DES:P BK 96 PG 29 PAR 1 DES: Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5:Output F6:Jump (Image) FS:Done I D'ISPLAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ PCL: 40158404 ONR:JOHN A & MARY M PRESCOTT L P TYPE:3 LND: IMP: PP: OTHR TOT .. NET: 19730 C/O: MAIL:lB752 E 17TH ST SANTA ANA CA SITE:250 S PROSPECT AV EXEi: KEY: PROP TYP: BAS L1975 ZIP:9270528155 19730 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13049 BAS I REC#:R91548016 19730 DES:N TR 3 BLK A LOT 11 DES: Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5:Output F6:Jump (Image) FS:Done I 'CL: 50108120 ONR:FUSS, LINNA MARIE ,ND: MP: PP: ~THR 'OT: [ET: IDISPLAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ TYPE:i 48269 C/O: 113898 MAIL:1200 WASS ST TUSTIN CA SITE:1200 WASS ST EXEi: 7000 KEY:7 PROP TYP: BAS L1980 ZIP:9278028566 162167 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13101 BAS I1980REC#:R01059939 155167 DES:IRVINE SUB LOT 331 BLK 13 SELY 165 FT NELY 95 FT N DES:WLY1/2 SLY1/4 Fl:Help F2.-Full/List F3:Format (Sort) FS:Output F6:Jump (Image) FS:Done I DISPLAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ PCL.. 40158406 ONR:JOHN A & MARY M PRESCOTT L P TYPE:3 LND: IMP: PP: OTHR TOT: NET: 41387 C/O: MAIL:18752 E 17TH ST SANTA ANA CA SITE:255 EL CAMINO REAL EXEi: KEY: PROP TYP: BAS L1975 ZIP:9270528155 41387 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13049 BAS I REC#:R91548016 41387 DES:N TR 3 BLK A LOT 6 DES: Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5:Output F6:Jump (Image) F8:Done tDISPLAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ PCL: 40158505 ONR:SURFAS, ARNOLD H SURFAS BETTINA J TYPE:3 LND: 138770 C/O: ' IMP: PP: OTHR TOT: NET: 180062 MAIL:145 WEST FIRST ST #B TUSTIN CA SITE:365 EL CAMINO REAL EXEI: KEY: PROP TYP: BAS L1987 ZIP:9278032544 318832 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13049 BAS I1987REC$:R86000396083 318832 DES:TR 3 LOT BLK B N 50 FT S 102 5 FT W 150 FT -EX ALL DES:EY- ' FI :Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5:Output F6:Jump (Image) FS:Done I~I~PLAY'. ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ PCL: 40158407 ONR:JOHN A & MARY M PRESCOTT L P TYPE:3 LND: IMP: PP: OTHR TOT: NET: 33041 C/O: MAIL..18752 E 17TH ST SANTA ANA CA SITE:245 EL CAMINO REAL EXEI: KEY: PROP TYP: BAS L1975 ZIP:9270528155 33041 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13049 BAS I REC#:R91548016 33041 DES:N TR 3 BLK A LOT 5 DES: Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5:Output F6:Jump (Image) FS:Done IDISPLAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ PCL: 40158406 ONR:JOHN A & MARY M PRESCOTT L P TYPE:3 LND: IMP: PP: OTHR TOT: NET: 41387 C/O: MAIL:lB752 E 17TH ST SANTA ANA CA SITE:255 EL CAMINO REAL EXEi: KEY: PROP TYP: BAS L1975 ZIP:9270528155 41387 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13049 BAS I REC#:R91548016 41387 DES:N TR 3 BLK A LOT 6 DES: Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5'.Output F6..Jump (Image) F8:Done IDTS~LAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ PCL: 40162310 ONR:JOHN A & MARY M PRESCOTT L P TYPE:3 LND: IMP: PP: OTHR TOT: NET: 105966 C/O: MAIL:lB752 E 17TH ST SANTA ANA CA SITE:505 S D ST EXEI: KEY: PROP TYP: BAS L1975 ZIP:9270528155 105966 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13049 BAS I REC#:R91548018 105966 DES:S TUSTIN TR BLK A S 366 FT N 699 FT W 130 FT -EX S DES:180 FT- Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5:Output F6:Jump (Image) FS:Done I DISPLAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ PCL: 40158408 ONR:JOHN A & MARY M PRESCOTT L P TYPE.'3 LND: IMP: PP: OTHR TOT: NET: 33041 C/O: MAIL:18752 E 17TH ST SANTA ANA CA SITE:235 EL CAMINO REAL EXEi: KEY: PROP TYP: BAS L1975 ZIP:9270528155 33041 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13049 BAS I REC#:R91548016 33041 DES:N TR 3 BLK A LOT 4 DES: Fl:Help F2..Full/L4'st F3..Format (Sort) F5..0utput F6:Jump (Image) F8:Done IDISPLAY" ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ .0CL: 40153228 0NR:WHITTIER TRUST CO TR FB0 MULLtN FAMILY TRUST TYPE'.3 ',ND IMP PP: DTHR FOT: .~ET: 264817 C/O: MAIL:ATTN REAL ESTATE DEPT 1600 HUNTINGTON DR SOUTH PASADENA CA SITE: EXEi: KEY: PROP TYP: BAS L1977 ZIP:91030 264817 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13000 BAS I1977REC#:R99615141 264817 DES:TEODOCIO YORBA ALLOT LOT LOT 183.78 X 297 FT DES: Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5:Output F6:Jump (Image) FS:Done tDISPLAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ PCL: 40162311 ONR:JOHN A & MARY M PRESCOTT L P TYPE:3 LND: IMP: PP: 0THR 'rOT: NET: 21632 C/O: MAIL:18752 E 17TH ST SANTA ANA CA SITE: EXEi: KEY: PROP TYP: BAS L1975 ZIP:9270528155 21632 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13049 BAS I REC#:R91548018 21632 DES:S TUSTIN TR LOT BLK 18 S 33 FT W 130 FT DES: Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5:Output F6:Jump (Image) FS:Done PCL: 40162305 ONR:TUSTIN MORTUARY INC LND: IMP: PP: OT~R TOT: NET: IDISPLAY: ORANGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ TYPE:3 53830 C/O: MAIL:220 E MAIN ST TUSTIN CA SITE:17842 E MAIN ST EXEI: KEY: PROP TYP: BAS L1975 ZIP:9278044100 53830 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13049 BAS I REC#:R01064700084 53830 DES:S TUSTIN TR LOT BLK A POR OF BLK DES: Fl:Help F2:Full/List F3:Format (Sort) F5..Output F6:Jump (Image) FS:Done ?CL: 40125304 ONR:ENDERLE, WALLACE TR ~ND: 196123 C/O: £MP: MAIL:14081 YORBA ST SUITE 107 pp: SITE: )THR FOT: ~ET: IDISPLAY: OR3kNGE 8 LINE: 1 of 1~ TYPE:3 TUSTIN CA EXEi: KEY: PROP TYP: BAS L1975 ZIP:9278020500 196123 EXE2: KEY: TRA:13000 BAS I1975REC#:SCG000041409 196123 DES:P BK 84 PG 28 PAR 9 DES: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Richard L. Spix (SB No. 109109) 1665 E. Fourth St., Ste. 214 Santa Ana, California 92701 (714) 625-0084 Attorney for Petitioner JUAN GARCIA, ) ) ) ) VS. ) ) CITY OF TUSTIN, a Municipal Corporation) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CENTRAL ORANGE COUNTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case No. 01 CC02149 Honorable Dennis S. Choate Petitioner, DECLARATION OF AL SCALES ) Respondent, ) ) I, AL SCALES, declare as follows: 1. I have been in the construction, housing development and rehabilitation field for over 40 years, with 27 years working for the City of Santa Ana's Community Development Agency in the development and operation of government sponsored loan, rehabilitation and infill housing programs. A true and accurate summary of my experience is attached hereto as Exhibit A. If called, I could competently testify based on personal knowledge to the facts stated in this declaration. 2. I have been retained by petitioner to evaluate the sites listed in Table H-15 (June 2002 Housing Element p. 46; AR p. 11298) of the City ofTustin's Housing Element for suitability for the location of Iow and moderate income housing. No part of my charges for this activity depends on any result in the pending case and I and any affiliated organizations have no present interest in any development in the City of Tustin. /// DECLARATION OF AL SCALES 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 METHODOLOGY 3. Counsel for the petitioner transmitted a copy of Table H- 15 to me for review. A true and correct copy of that table is attached hereto as Exhibit B. I then conducted a visual inspection of each of the parcels and,investigated the size, surrounding land uses, zoning, and other criteria necessary for the provision of low and moderate income housing. I took pictures of the sites when feasible to show suitability related issues. True and correct copies of photographs that fairly and accurately depict the scenes that they purport to represent are attached hereto as Exhibits with the corresponding Assessor's Parcel Numbers captioned on the photographs. OPINION 4. Many of the sites identified by the City of Tustin are not appropriate or available for the construction of new low or moderate income housing. In fact, a review of all of the sites shows that only a maximum of 42 dwellings can be constructed, even assuming a mixed use zone is permitted. Specific parcel issues are as follows: A. Parcels 401-521-21, 22, 23, and 24 (Mountain Ave.)--These parcels have existing housing in the construction stage or recently completed. The units were "for sale" market rate dwellings. B. Parcels 401-543-03, 10, 11 (Pasadena Avenue)--These parcels are remnant freeway widening sites, right up against the freeway sound wall. They are not appropriate building sites for housing units. The widest end of this pie shaped contiguous piece of land is approximately sixty- seven feet and rapidly reduces in width to about 2-3 feet. After about 35 feet, the parcel is already about ½ the original width. Even though the land may total .77 of an acre, a variance of front yard setback would be needed under current zoning to build even a single dwelling unit. Even with a front yard setback waiver, the potential residential unit would have to be oddly configured and out of keeping with the surrounding R1 zone. C. Parcel 402-333-05 (B Street)--This parcel, though listed at .26 of an acre, is only 39 ½ feet wide and about 150 feet deep. This site is unbuildable for housing due to set back requirements, parking area turning radius issues, and fire access. D. Parcel 402-401-04 (Nisson Road)--This parcel is now 432-401-11 and 12, and is large enough for the construction of at most 15 dwelling units. DECLARATION OF AL SCALES 2 E. Parcels 402-031-04 and 402-301-03, 05, and 06 (McFadden Ave.)--These parcels have no apparent physical boundary and appear to be unavailable as having been merged into the adjacent strip mall commercial use. F. Parcel 401-253-04 (Enderlee Center Dr.)--This parcel is a large site and very desirable for construction. However, the site is zoned PC COM4 and located between an office building and its parking structure and is across the street from a restaurant complex. The incompatibility of the surrounding land uses where no buffer zone is available makes the site unsuitable for low and moderate income residential development and in conflict with the general plan of the City. 9 :~'~:~:~:~' G. Parcels 401-623-05, 06 (270 So. Main St.)--The site is under construction as a I0 commercial structure, a water filtration facility. 11 H. Parcel 432-141-09 (1101 Sycamore Ave.)--Construction of residential units in progress 12 on the site. The units were "for sale" market rate dwellings. 13 I. Parcel 401-532-28 (101-139 First St.)--This parcel is located in a strip mall commercial 14 center near the comer of First Street and E1Camino Real (both major arterials). The incompatibility 15 ofthe surrounding land uses where no buffer zone is available makes the site unsuitable for low and 16 moderate income residential development and in conflict with the general plan of the City. The 17 depth of this parcel is not sufficient for a mixed use zone allowing residential. This is due to the 18 need for commercial parking at the front of the site. 19 J. Parcels 401-584-04, 05, 06, 07, 08 (El Camino Real)--These contiguous parcels front E1 · 20 Real (a major arterial) in the Tustin Old Town commercial district and are zoned C2/C2 P4. 21 The incompatibility of the surrounding land uses where no buffer zone is available makes the site 22 unsuitable for low and moderate income residential development and in conflict with the general 23 plan of the City. A mixed use is problematic for this site because of a lack of depth of the parcels, 24 but on the Prospect side of the site, a maximum of 5-6 units could be constructed if zoning were 25 changed and variances were allowed by the City. 26 K. Parcels 401-623-08, 09, 10, 11 (El Camino Real)---These contiguous parcels front E1 27 Camino Real (a major arterial) in the Tustin Old Town commercial district and are zoned C2/C2 P4. 28 The incompatibility of the surrounding land uses where no buffer zone is available makes the site DECLARATION OF AL SCALES 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 unsuitable for low and moderate income residential development and in conflict with the general plan of the City. This lot is about twice as deep as the parcels discussed in "J" above, and a mixed use is possible with an entrance off of Sixth St. The site can realistically yield a maximum of 20 units. L. Parcels 501-081-09, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20 (W~s)--These parcels are not available for low income housing as they are merged into an existing commercial and residential development. M. Parcel 500-071-11 (13941 Browning)--This parcel is not vacant, it has two duplex buildings on it that are in need of repair. 5. With targeted funding programs by the City to assist in the development of low income housing, even the potential 42 market rate units will not be affordable to low income persons and families. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed under the laws of the state of California on August 3, 2002. DECLARATION OF AL SCALES 4 PARTNER ,~ I III . I I I Ill I I ~ I ii i_ Il III ii Al Scales, Manager of Development Experience Summary: A1 scales has been in the construction, housing development and property rehabilitation field for over 40 years. The past twenty seven of those years while working for the City of Santa Ann's Community Development Agency A1 has gained extensive experience in the development and operation of various government sponsored loan, rehabilitation and infill housing programs. During the early years with the city he was also Vice President of a partnership that developed custom homes in thc Ventura County area, Prior to working for the City of Santa Aria Al held various positions with privately operated construction, development and design firms. Rossmoor Laguna Hills a specialist in the design, development and construction of Senior Citizen Housing Communities was one of them. As a Project Planner A1 assisted in the site development of various project that enabled Rossmoor to provide their customers with a view oriented leisure living life style. Before working for Rossmoor Al worked for the Vahlco Corporation as a Project Coordinator/Planner. This position required him to assist in site development, and coordinate with the construction of single family home subdivisions in California, Texas, and New Jersey. General: Prior to this A1 worked for various construction related companies performing functions as manual labor in construction, design of metal clad switchgear, preparation of street plan and profile drawings and mechanical drafting. Project Experience: A1 has work on many projects over the past 40 years ranging from small $5,000 mobile home rehabilitations to $100 million dollar senior citizen housing projects. Housing Development & Management Solutions Iii .... ......... i Iii Al Scales, Manager of Development PARTNER .... Il ProJ~ctg Include _ , __ The City of Santa Aha Projects: Coma'stone Village Multi family Rehabilitation of 527 Units City Walk The revitalization of a portion of the downtown Santa Aha. Demolition of deteriorated structures and the construction of new townhouses, single family homes and parks,, Mc Fadden Street realignment Project Assistod in the purchaso of needed properties and design of remaining property not used for the street, Bristol Street Widening Project. Assisted in the purchase of needed properties and finding replacement properties, Town Square Rehabilitation Project. Assisted with the rehabilitation of 30 units of rent to own. Historic Housing Move four single family houses and rehabilitation of them to prevent their being demolished, French Park Block Project. The exterior renovations to four houses. Non Profit Organizations Assist various non profit organizations purchase mad rehabilitate houses for low income rentals or purchase by low income families both single family m~d multiple family units. Housing Development & Management Solutions PARTNER I i iiiii i iiiii ..... ii Al Scales, Manage of Development Projects Include Other Projects Rossmoor Laguna Hills He assisted with the site development and construction of 1000 Condominium units for Senior Citizen Community Living Projects. ~.Lake Forest Project ..... ::..,~i[ :'~:!::" A1 assisted with the site development and con~tmction 400 single family unit subdivisions. Mc Allen, Texas Project He assistext with the site development of 200 units of a single family subdivision. Sierra Brooks Project Sierra County California A1 assisted with the site development of a 150 unit Recreational Community including a large Community center and sky lift. Robinsville New Jersey Project He assisted with the site development of a 100 unit single family gated community including a golf course and small plane airport. Housing Development & Management Solutions Table H- 15 VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED LAND6 CITY OF TUSTIN ID~ I Parcel Number [Location IAcresI Zonin]~ Vacant Land 1 401-521-21 158 Mountain View 0.14 R-12 401-521-22 160 Mountain View 0.14 R-12 401-521-23 168 Mountain View 0.14 R-12 401-521-24 Mountain View 0.14 R-12 2 500-201-02 Browning 2.67 ETsp3 3 401-543-03 240 Pasadena Avenue 0.30 R-34 401-543-10 220 Pasadena Avenue 0.18 R-34 401-543-11 230 Pasadena Avenue 0.29 R-34 4 402-333-05 15651 B Street 0.26 R-34 5 432-401-04 1776 Nisson Road 0.71 R-34 6 402-031-04 16471 McFadden Avenue 0.52 C-I~ 7 402-301-05, 06 16801 McFadden Avenue 0.60 C-14 8 401-623-05, 06 270 East Main Street 0.74 C-2/C-2P4 9 401-253-04 14082 Enderlee Center Drive 0.85 PC Corn4 l0s 432-141-09 1101 Sycamore Avenue 1.76 R-34 11s 401-532-28 101-139 W. First Street 1.17 FSSP4 Total Vacant Land 10.79 Underuff lized Land 12 401-584-04 250 Prospect Avenue 0.34 C-2/C-2P4 401-584-05 155 Third Street 0.17 C-2/C-2P4 401-584-06 245 El Camino Real 0.17 C-2/C-2P4 401-584-07 235 El Camino Real 0.17 C-2/C-2P4 401-584-08 225 El Camino Real 0.17 C-2/C-2P4 13' ' 401-623-08 275 Sixth Street ' ' 2.99 C-2/C-2_P4 401-623-09 n/a 0.45 C-2/C-2P4 401-623-10 515 E1 Camino Real 0.55 C-2/C-2_m 401-623-11 449 El Camino Real 0.10 C-2/C-2P~ 14 432-131-17 Tustin Block 1.40 CG4 432-131-18 Tustin Block 3.23 CG4 15 401-522-08 433-435 W. First Street 1.03 FSSP4 16 401-571-09 185-225 Prospect Avenue 2.86 MHp4 17 401-572-03 140-150 Second Street 401-572-04 245 "C" Street 1.03 C-2P~ 401-572-05 155 Third Street , Total Underutilized Land 14.66 TOTAL VACANT & UNDERUTILIZED LAND 25.45 i i ~ See Figure 1 2 Low Density 3 Medium Density s High Density. Housing units in Old Town Commercial areas would be facilitated through the creation of mixed-use zoning. See Program 1.21 for additional informal:ion on mixed use zoning. s Senior housing s Excludes vacant and underutilized land in Planned Communities and at MCAS-Tustm site n/a - not available Source: Ci,W of Tustin. CITY OF TUSTIN HOUSING ELEMENT 46 June 2002 11298 Tustin Parcel- 401-521-21 thur 24 Tustin2 Parcel- 401-521-21 thru 24 Tustin2 Parcel- 402-333-05 Tustin Parcel- 402-333-0,5 Tustin Parcel- 432-401-11 & 12 Tustin2 Parcel- 432-401-11 & 12 Tustin3 - Parcel 401-253-04 Tustin Parcel- 401-253-04 Tustin2 - Parcel- 401-253-04 i Tustin Parcel- 401-623-05 & 06 Tustin Parcel- 401-623-05 & 06 Tustin2 Parcel 401-532-28 Tustin2 Parcel- 401-532-28 Tustin Parcel- 401-532-28 Tustin Parcel2 - 401-532-28 Tustin Parcel - 401-584-04 thur 08 Tustin Parcel- 401-548-04 ?/7 ~/~' Tustin2 Parcel- 401-548-04 Tustin3 Parcel- 401-548-04 thur 08 Tustin2 Parcel- 401-548-04 thur 08 Tustin Parcel- 401-548-04 thru 08 Tustin2 Parcel - 401-584-04 thur 08 ?zz~ ~J Tustin3 Parcel- 401-623-08, 10 & 11 Tustin Parcel- 401-623-08, 10 & 11 Tustin4 Parcel- 401-623-08, 10 & 11 Tustin2 Parcel- 401-623-08, 10 & 11 CITY RESPONSE TO MR. RICHARD L. SPIX COMMENTS TO REVISION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE NOVEMBER 4, 2002 le Mr. Spix Comment: The City has removed about 150 affordable rental units, displaced low/mod families, during the approvals of the Soup Plantation Project, its bond financed condominium developments, and other demolition in the City since 1994. Ci ,t3, Response: The City did not remove 150 affordable rental units at the time the City approved the Souplantation project (a.k.a. Tustin Plaza). The site never contained residential units but was historically an abandoned railroad utility yards and railroad right-of-way. The Souplantation project is located at 13621 Newport Avenue. The project was approved on June 10, 1985 for the development of a shopping center and an office complex on vacant land. Since 1994, private developers have removed 296 dilapidated and vacant apartment units and replaced them with 145 ownership condominium units (Tustin Grove) and removed 56 dilapidated apartment units and replaced them with 38 new single family homes (Ambrose Lane). Although the number of units was reduced, the number of bedrooms remains the same, consistent with State law. More information of each of these projects follows. Tustin Grove Project: The project was approved in 1994. The previous apartment complex on the site was deteriorated, created a blight on the neighborhood, and contributed to an increase in local crime, drug abuse, and vandalism. The complex was declared unsafe based upon numerous building, fire, and health and safety code violations. The apartment complex was vacant since 1990. Since no households were being displaced as a result of this project, consistent with Article 9 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, the City was not required to construct replacement housing. However, consistent with Section 33413(b) (2) of the California Community Redevelopment Law, the City restricted 21 units affordable to low . and moderate income households (8 units for Very Low Income households and 13 units for the Low to Moderate Income Households), provided significant developer subsidy to achieve these affordable units, and offered significant funds as downpayment assistance to eligible First time Homebuyers. The City action was also consistent with the Goal 3 of the Housing Element that is to increase the percentage of its homeownership to ensure a reasonable balance of rental and owner-occupied housing within the City. Ambrose Lane Project: The project was approved in 1998. The previous apartment complex on the site was infested with gang activities and code enforcement violations. Consistent with the California Community Redevelopment Law, of the 38 units newly constructed units, eight (8) new units on the site were restricted to moderate-income households. The City provided significant developer subsidies to achieve these affordable units and also offered significant funds as part of a First time Homebuyer Loan program made available to eligible buyers. City Response to Mr. Spix Comments November 4, 2002 Page 2 , Mr. Spix Comment: The identified sites for low/mod housing are inadequate in that: a) the City has failed to produce any low income units historically in its planned community developments, b) the one site (area 25) of the MCAS with densities which are capable of producing low/mod housing can only presently contain less than half of the need for such housing, and c) the "infill sites identified in Table H-15 are largely unusable and unavailable as is set forth in the Declaration of A1 Scales lodged herewith. Ci.ty Response: a) Mr. Spix Comment: The City has failed to produce any low income units historically in its planned community developments: CiW Response: Since the 1994 Housing Element Update, the City processed two (2) planned community residential districts (Tustin Grove and Ambrose Lane) for the development of single family detached units. In both districts, the allowable densities are higher than the City's Single Family Residential District (R-l). Tustin Grove allows for 12.2 dwelling units per acre and Ambrose Lane allows for 11 units per acre compared to City's R-1 District which allows for 6 dwelling units per acre. As a result, these units were more affordable compared to those units developed under 'the R-1 district regulations. In addition, the City's tenure distribution is approximately 40 percent owner-occupied and 60 percent renter-occupied. Compared to the County as a whole, which had 57.5 percent owner-occupied units and 37.6 percent renter-occupied units, the City has a high proportion of renter-occupied units. Goal 3 of the Housing Element objective is to increase the percentage of ownership housing to ensure a reasonable balance of rental and owner-occupied housing within the City. The creation of the planned community residential districts provide the City with opportunities to allow higher density for single family detached homes thereby providing for more affordable owner-occupied units. As mentioned in the City's Response to Mr. Spix Comment No. 1 above, the Tustin Grove and Ambrose Lane projects provide for restricted units consistent with the California Community Redevelopment Law. These restrictions are recorded within the respective Developer Agreement. In each of these projects, the City provided significant subsidies to ensure affordable units were provided and buyers had financial access to downpayment assistance. b) Mr. Spix Comment: The one site (area 25) of the MCAS with densities which are capable of producing low/mod housing can only presently contain less than half of the need for such housing. City Response: There is no area 25 identified in the Reuse Plan of MCAS Tustin. The MCAS Tustin site presents the City with 389.2 acres suited for residential development that could accommodate an additional 4,049 units. The MCAS Tustin site is proposed to City Response to Mr. Spix Comments November 4, 2002 Page 3 c) be implemented through the adoption of a Specific Plan by the City and the adoption of a Redevelopment Project Area. Based on State Redevelopment Law and the proposed Specific Plan requirements, at least 15 percent of the units (607 units) constructed at the MCAS Tustin site will be affordable to Very-Low, Low, and Moderate-income households, of which at least 6 percent or 243 units must be affordable to Very Low- income households. The remaining 364 units would be distributed among the Low and Moderate income households by utilizing RHNA Low and Moderate income percentages (140 units for Low Income households and 224 Moderate income households). In addition to these inclusionary obligations, the MCAS-Tustin Reuse Plan could create 252 additional units for Very Low-income households (192 transitional housing units and 60 social services housing units). Therefore, the City would provide for housing beyond the minimum requirements Mr. Spix Comment: The "infill sites identified in Table H-15 are largely unusable and unavailable as is set forth in the Declaration of A1 Scales. Many of the sites identified are not appropriate or available for the construction of new low or moderate income housing. In fact, a review of all of the sites shows that only a maximum of forty-two (42) dwellings can be constructed, even assuming a mixed use zone is permitted. Ci~ Response: Table H-15 of the June 2002 Proposed Amended Housing Element provides an inventory of vacant and underutilized land in the City of Tustin exclusive of the MCAS-Tustin and Planned Community Development sites to describe the remaining housing capacity in the City of Tustin. Table H-15 indicates that there are 25.45 acres of vacant and underutilized land which have the potential to create an opportunity for the development of housing units on vacant or underutilized land during the planning period. Table H-17 of the June 2002 Proposed Amended Housing Element provides a summary of new construction quantified objectives that are estimated to take place during the plalming period. In preparing Table H-17, the City considered those sites that developers have inquired about for residential developments. Mr. Spix Comment: Parcels 401-521-21, 22, 23, and 24 (Mountain View Avenue) - These parcels have existing housing in the construction stage or recently completed. The units were "for sale" market rate dwellings. CiW Response: Mr. Spix's statements are not accurate. At the time the June 2002 Proposed Amended Housing Element was prepared, these parcels were vacant and zoned for single-family homes. The City does not include parcels 401-521- 21, 22, 23, and 24 in the calculation for "New Construction Quantified Objectives" (Table H- 17). Therefore, if these units were sold at market rate upon completion, it would not affect the City's Quantified Objective Table. b) Mr. Spix Comment: Parcels 401-543-03, 10, 11 (Pasadena Avenue) - these parcels are remnant freeway widening sites, right up against the freeway sound wall. They are not appropriate building sites for housing units. The widest end of this pie shaped contiguous piece of land is approximately sixty-seven (67) feet City Response to Mr. Spix Comments November 4, 2002 Page 4 c) d) and rapidly reduces in width to about 2-3 feet. Even though the land may total .77 of an acre, a variance of front yard setback would be needed to build a single- family dwelling unit. Ci.ty Response: Mr. Spix's assumptions are incorrect. These parcels are zoned Multiple Family Residential (R-3). Although, these parcels are remnant freeway widening sites, they are zoned R-3 with a High Density Residential General Plan land use designation. If Caltrans (owner of the parcels) wishes to sell the properties for residential development, the properties could be developed with low to high density residential provided that they meet the development standards under R-3 and that they comply with the noise standards for residential development. Current provisions of the City's Zoning Code would also provide flexibility for non-conforming conditions created by public right-of-way condemnations. Mr. Spix Comment: Parcels 402-333-05 (B Street)- This parcel, though listed at .26 of an acre, is only 39 1/2 feet wide and about 150 feet deep. This site is unbuildable for housing due to set back requirements, parking area turning radius issues, and fire access. Ci.ty Response: Mr. Spix's assumptions on this parcel are not correct. Parcel 402-333-05 measures forty-one (41) feet by 279.04 feet and is zoned R-3 2000. The R-3 District development standard requires a minimum of five (5) foot side yard setback. Assuming that the development would have a five (5) foot side yard setback on one side and a twelve (12) foot driveway (minimum driveway width the City allows) on the other side, the lot is approximately twenty-four (24) feet wide. The developer could provide two-story units in the front of the parcel with garages or parking area at the rear. A similar development has occurred on the adjoining parcel. Mr. Spix Comment: Parcel 402-401-04 (Nisson Road)- This parcel is now 432- 401-11 and 12, and is large enough for the construction of at most 15 dwelling units. e) Ci .t3' Response: Mr. Spix's assumptions on these parcels are not correct. Parcels 432-401-11 and 12 are approximately .71 of an acre. These parcels are currently zoned for Multiple Family Residential (R-3) and allow for a variety of residential developments such as apartments, duplexes, townhomes, etc. Under the R-3 district regulations, a maximum of 17 units could be developed under the City's existing zoning code without a density bonus or 22 units with a 25 percent density bonus provision. Mr. Spix Comment: Parcels 402-031-04 and 402-301-03, 05, and 06 (Mc Fadden Avenue) - These parcels have no apparent physical boundary and appears to be unavailable as having been merged into the adjacent strip mall commercial use. City Response to Mr. Spix Comments November 4, 2002 Page 5 h) Ci.ty Response: Mr. Spix's assumptions are not correct. Parcels 402-031-04 and 402-301-03, 05, and 06 are surrounded by apartment complexes and commercial developments. As indicated above, Table H-15 provides an inventory of vacant and underutilized land. However, these lands may not be developed during the planning period. The City does not include these parcels in its New Construction Quantified Objective estimate (Table H-17). Mr. Spix Comment: Parcel 401-253-04 (Enderlee Center Drive.)- This parcel is a large site and very desirable for construction. However, the site is zoned PC- COM and located between an office building and its parking structures and is across the street from a restaurant complex. The incompatibility of the surrounding land uses where no buffer zone is available makes the site unsuitable for low and moderate income residential development and in conflict with the general plan of the City. Ci.ty Response: Parcel 401-253-04 is zoned Planned Community Commercial. The City identifies this parcel as suitable for residential, development due to its close proximity to residential developments to the south of the parcel. The property is surrounded by Planned Community Multiple Family Residential (R-3) and Planned Community Residential properties to the south and Planned Community Commercial to the east, north, and west. The site would be suitable for the development of medium-high residential units consistent with the sites across Vandenberg Lane. Zoning designation amendments would need to be accommodated to allow for residential developments. The City has approved such amendments in the past to allow for residential development. Mr. Spix Comment: Parcels 401-623-05, 06 (270 S. Main Street)- The site is under construction as a commercial structure, a water filtration facility. Ci .t3' Response: Mr. Spix has incorrectly identified the parcels. Parcels 401-623- 05 and 06 are currently vacant. The parcels are located to the south of Main Street adjacent to the Saddleback Mortuary. The City does not include this parcel in its New Construction Quantified Objective estimate (Table H- 17). The site that is under construction as a water filtration facility is located across Main Street to the north of parcels 401-623-05 and 06. Mr. Spix Comment: Parcel 432-141-09 (1101) Sycamore Avenue)- Construction of residential units in progress on the site. The units were "for sale" market rate dwelling. Ci.ty Response: At the time of preparation of the Housing Element Update (June 2002 version), the parcel was vacant. The City approved a development of fifty- four (54) affordable senior rental apartments at this site on May 21, 2001. These units will be 100 percent affordable to seniors (17 units for the Very Low at 50 City Response to Mr. Spix Comments November 4, 2002 Page 6 percent of Area Median Income, 36 units for the Low Income seniors at 60 percent of Area Median Income, and 1 manager unit). Mr. Spix Comment: Parcel 401-532-28 (101-139 First Street)- This parcel is located in a strip mall commercial center near the comer of First Street and E1 Camino Real (both major arterials). The incompatibility of the surrounding land uses where no buffer zone is available makes the site unsuitable for low and moderate income residential development and in conflict with the general plan for the City. The dept of this parcel is not sufficient for a mixed use zone allowing residential. This is due to the need for commercial parking at the front of the site. Ci.ty Response: Parcel 401-532-28 is located within the First Street Specific Plan area. The City has been approached by several developers who are interested in building senior housing at the site. Staff has indicated support for an amendment to the land use designation to accommodate senior housing. The parcel is surrounded with residential properties to the north and the parcel fronts onto the First Street corridor. With proper planning, the site would be suitable for senior housing or mixed-use development with easy access to support commercial uses along the First Street corridor and Old Town Tustin. Mr. Spix Comment: Parcels 401-584-04, 05, 06, 07, 08 (El Camino Real)- These contiguous parcels front E1 Camino Real (a major arterial) in the Tustin Old Town Commercial District and are zoned C2/C2P. The incompatibility of the surrounding land uses where no buffer zone is available makes the site unsuitable for low and moderate income residential development and in conflict with the general plan of the City. A mixed use is problematic for this site because of a lack of depth of the parcels, but on the Prospect side of the site, a maximum of 5- 6 units could be constructed if zoning were changed and variances were allowed by the City. CiW Response: These parcels are located in Old Town Tustin and the Cultural Resources Overlay District. The close proximity of these sites with other commercial uses in old town setting and historic district creates a suitable site for mixed use. The City adopted a General Plan in 1994 which permits up to 291 residential units in Old Town Tustin subject to adoption of a Planned Development or Specific Plan on an individual site. In addition, the City has completed a RUDAT Design Report prepared by the Orange County American Institute of Architects (AIA) Urban Design Team which recommended housing on the site. A subsequent report prepared by the University of California, Irvine (UCI) also recommended housing on this site. The City will be shortly undertaking the process of developing either a Specific Plan or Planned Development district. As part of the new zoning designation, the City would develop development standards specifically for this site. Mixed uses would be authorized by the new zoning documents. More precise development standards would be available in the near future. City Response to Mr. Spix Comments November 4, 2002 Page 7 k) 1) m) Mr. Spix Comment: Parcels 401-623-08, 09, 10, 11 (El Camino Real) - These contiguous parcels front E1 Camino Real (a major arterial) in the Tustin Old Town Commercial District and are zoned C2/C2P. The incompatibility of the surrounding land uses where no buffer zone is available makes the site unsuitable for low and moderate income residential development and in conflict with the general plan of the City. This lot is about twice as deep and the parcels discussed in "J" above, and a mixed use is possible with an entrance off of Sixth Street. The site can realistically yield a maximum of 20 units. Ci.ty Response: These parcels are located adjacent to Tustin Gardens senior housing complex and across Sixth Street to the Ambrose Lane single family homes. These vacant sites are also located along E1 Camino Real in the Old Town Tustin area. Based upon their locations in close proximity to other residential developments and other support commercial developments, these parcels lend themselves to mixed use developments. In addition, the City has received a great deal of interest from the development industry for mixed use developments. The specific density level for a mixed use project has not been determined at this time. However, collectively these parcels total 4.09 acres and based upon the City's highest allowable density level of 25 units per acre, approximately 100 units could be potentially developed on these parcels. Mr. Spix Comment: Parcels 501-081-09, 10, 12, 18, 19, 20 (Wass) - These parcels are not available for low income housing as they are merged into an existing commercial and residential development. · CiW Response: Parcels 501-081-09, 10, 12, 18, 19, 20 (Wass) are not included in Table H-15 of the June 2002 Proposed Amended Housing Element. These lots were included in the previous draft (December 2001 version) because the lots are zoned Suburban Residential (R-4) which allows for multiple family dwelling but are developed with single family residences. However, based upon feedback from the residents at this neighborhood on recent development proposal, the residents indicated that they will initiate zone change from R-4 district to Single Family Residential (R-1) district to preserve the neighborhood's character. Mr. Spix Comment: Parcel 500-071-11 (13941 Browning- This parcel is not vacant, it has two duplex buildings on it that are in need of repair. CiW Response: This parcel is not included in Table H-15 of the June 2002 Proposed Amended Housing Element. This parcel was mistakenly identified in the previous draft (December 2001 version) for the parcel across the street on Browning Avenue (Parcel 500-201-02). City Response to Mr. Spix Comments November 4, 2002 Page 8 . Mr. Spix Comment: The largest number of parcels in Table H-15 is owned by John andP Mary Prescott. The concentration of ownership in the parcels on Table H-15 has not been identified as a constraint to their availability. Ci.ty Response: With the exception of the MCAS Tustin site, the City of Tustin is almost built out. Consistent with the State law, Government Code Section 65583(a)(3), Table H-15 listed properties that are vacant and underutilized which could potentially be built as residential properties. The City listed these properties based upon their present uses, locations in relation to other surrounding properties, market demand, and actual expressed development interest. The City does not foresee the concentration of ownership in individual parcels which are not immediately adjacent as a constraint but actually an opportunity to allow the City and developers to negotiate with a property owner, perhaps a more economically viable development pattern in the Old Town area. Contrary to concentration of ownership, dispersed ownership could create a greater challenge when negotiating significant redevelopment with multiple owners. Nevertheless, prior to any development, the City would comply with due process and provide opportunities for any individual property owners to participate. . Mr. Spix Comment: Governmental assistance programs for mixed use developments involve additional complexities in the construction process that are not identified or addressed by the revision. CiW Response: The City identifies mixed use developments as a means to recycle underutilized sites in the Old Town area in the Proposed Amended Housing Element (June 2002 version). As part of the any specific proposal or development of Planned Development regulations or a Specific Plan, the City would establish development standards specifically for mixed use properties. The development standards would include uses permitted, density, parking, signage, etc. The financial elements that impact a specific project will depend on the individual characteristics of a project. Depending upon submittal of a proforma to the City, a project may or may not receive governmental assistance. 5. Mr. Spix Comment: The proposed revision also lacks adequate programs for low income segment of the community. CiW Response: The City disagrees with Mr. Spix's comment. Table H-23 of the Proposed Amended Housing Element (June 2002 version) lists programs that the City intends to undertake to achieve the goals and objectives listed in the Element. Some examples of the programs are as follows: Program 1.1 (Available Sites) encourages the utilization of Planned Community Districts and Specific Plan to authorize and encourage mixed use developments to assist in the development of new affordable housing. City Response to Mr. Spix Comments November 4, 2002 Page 9 Program 1.4 (Deed Restriction) requires appropriate deed restrictions to ensure continued affordability for low and moderate income housing constructed or rehabilitated with the assistance of public or Redevelopment Agency funds. Program 1.6 (Permit Processing for Low and Moderate Income Housing) ensures that processing of permits for low and moderate income housing are fast-tracked and given priority over other permit applications. Program 1.8 (Tax Increment Financing) provides housing set aside tax fimds generated from the redevelopment projects to assist in providing housing accommodations for low and moderate income households in rehabilitation or new construction projects. Program 1.14 (Bonding Program) allows for the City to issue Redevelopment tax-exempt bonds, as necessary, to accomplish Five-year Quantified Objectives with such issuance conditioned on having projects ready to move forward. The City would also utilize other housing revenue bond financing resources and Low Income Housing Tax Credits on new construction and acquisition/rehabilitation projects that help meet the City's affordable housing needs. Program 1.16 (Senior Citizen Housing) continues to identify sites that are suitable for senior citizens housing projects. These sites will be promoted for private development, and applications will be made for any available subsidy funds. Program 1.21 (Zoning Studies) would initiate studies to consider new programs to encourage and promote affordable housing. These studies include: 1) creation of zoning provisions which will accommodate mixed uses in portions of the City, particularly in the Old Town Commercial Area; 2) provide relaxation of certain development standards and incentives for projects which include affordable housing units upon City Council's approval; and 3) provide a process for individuals with disabilities to make requests for reasonable accommodation to relief from various land use, zoning, or other building rules, policies and/or procedures of the City. Program 1.25 (Fees, Exactions, and Permit Procedures) considers waiving or modifying various fees or exactions normally required where such waiver will reduce the affordability gap associated with providing housing of the elderly and for very low and low income households. Program 1.27 (Density Bonus) promotes density bonuses to facilitate the construction of affordable housing. Under State law, applicants may file for density bonuses when projects incorporate 20 percent of units for low income persons; 10 percent of units for very low income units; or 50 percent of units for senior citizens. Program 3.1 (Condominium Conversion) requires developers converting apartments to condominiums to process a conditional use permit, provide relocation assistance, and/or City Response to Mr. Spix Comments November 4, 2002 Page l0 provide incentives and assistance for purchase of the units by low and moderate income households. Program 3.2 (State Home-Ownership Assistance) provides a First Time Homebuyers program utilizing housing set-aside funds. The Redevelopment Agency also applies for and will explore the use of other funding opportunities such as HELP, HOME funds, and other State and Federal programs. Program 4.1 (Replacement Housing) ensures rehabilitation or construction of an equal number of replacement units when low and moderate income residential units are destroyed or removed from the market as part of a specific redevelopment project consistent with the California Community Redevelopment law. Program 4.3 (Housing Authority) allows the City to contract with the Orange County Housing Authority, where necessary, for the development and operation of federally assisted low and moderate income housing programs. Program 4,4 (Rental Assistance) encourages the availability of Section 8 rental assistance certificates and voucher certificate program assistance funds through the Orange County Housing Authority. To encourage the maintenance of existing and establishment of new certificates and support the County's efforts to obtain continued Federal funding. o Mr. Spix Comment: The bond financed condominium project files show that the projects do not even contain resale controls, yielding to only a "one time" Mod II unit, at best. Upon unrestricted private resale of the unit, any affordability may not be conserved. Ci.ty Resoonse.'_ Previous County bond issued sites in Tustin Ranch were for apartments and rental rates were controlled. Consistent with the California Community Redevelopment Law, all new projects that contain affordability requirements and which are income restricted (i.e. restricted units in the Tustin Grove and Ambrose Lane projects) are subject to re-sale restrictions or "rental rate restrictions." These restrictions are included in each project's Disposition and Developer Agreement for the life of the Redevelopment Plan and deed restrictions where other Countywide bond funding is provided. . Mr. Spix Comment: MCAS contains 1,537 dwelling units that had been available to the largely low/mod income military personnel. The housing element contains no discussion of conservation of, or interim availability of those units for low/mod income housing and merely seeks to exchange previously available low/mod housing for low density luxury housing. City Response: The dwelling units at the MCAS Tustin were available to military personnel only. These units were not included in the City's housing stock and nor were the units available to the, community. Nevertheless, the Reuse Plan and Specific Plan allows for rehabilitation of the existing units for reuse or new construction affordable to various income levels. The Reuse Plan does not call for or designate any area for luxury housing. Actium SS /( Richard L. Spix (SB No. 109109) 1665 E. Fourth St. Ste. 214 Santa Ana, California 92701 (714) 625-0084 Attorney for Petitioner IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CENTRAL ORANGE COUNTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUAN GARCIA, ) Case No. 01CCO2149 ) Honorable Dennis S. Choate Petitioner, ) PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE INADEQUACY ) JUNE /JULY DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENTS vs. ) ) Date: November 7 2002 CITY OF TUSTIN, a Municipal Corporation) Time: 3.00 p.m. ) Dept: C24 Respondent, ) Trial. None set PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION ii 1 a. The Petitioner and Court Properly Focus on the Very Low and Low Income Segments. 1 b. The New Housing Element Shows Disturbing Trends in the Low Income Community 2 c. The Deficiencies Identified in the Second Amended Petition have not been Cured by the Revisions under Consideration. 1 Housing Needs. 2. Adequate Sites. 3. Constraints. 4. Programs for Production of Housing. CONCLUSION 4 5 6 9 11 14 PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Davis v. Superior Court of Orange County (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1054 1 Park View Heights Corp. v. City of Black Jack (8th Cir 1979) 605 F.2d 1033 10 White v. Davis (1981) 13 Cal. 3d 774 10 STATUTES Government Code Section 65302(c) 1 Government Code Section 65580 1 Government Code Section 65583 1 Government Code Section 65583(a) 4 Government Code Section 65583(b) 4 Government Code Section 65583(c) 4 Government Code Section 65583(c)(1) 4 Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) 4 Government Code Section 65585(c) 9 Government Code Section 65589.3 9 Government Code Section 65754 4 Government Code Section 65755 4 Health and Safety Code Section 50093 1 OTHER AUTHORITIES 25 C.C.R. Sections 6926 -6932 1 PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS ii INTRODUCTION 2 This brief is meant to respond on the merits to the question of whether the newly amended 3 housing element substantially complies with the [State Law]." Davis v. Superior Court of Orange 4 County (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1054 at 1061 It assumes that the court is set to conduct a "full, 5 adversarial hearing" on the merits of the draft housing elements that are dated June and July 2002. 6 Petitioner will show that the writ should issue as requested. 7 a. The Petitioner and Court Properly Focus on the Very Low and Low Income Segments. 8 Petitioner has detailed the legal and policy grounds for this court 's proper review to 9 determine if the City adequately meets its low and very low income housing in the moving and reply 10 papers filed for the July 11, 2000 hearing, to which the court is respectfully referred. In short, the 11 Housing Element must make "adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all 12 economic segments of the community " Sections 65583, 65302(c) and 65580. State laws and 13 regulations separate economic segments into three general types: 1) very low 2) low and 3) 14 moderate income families. In order to be affordable" to a particular economic segment, the housing 15 must not cost more than 30% of the family income. AR p. 11529; Health and Safety Code Section 16 50093, 25 C.C.R. Sections 6926 -6932. Thus, in order to actually provide an affordable housing unit, 17 both the cost of the home and the income of the occupant are necessary elements. The following 18 discussion of segments is taken from the Table HTM -25 AR p. 11544 unless otherwise cited. 19 Housing affordability is figured on the county wide median income of $68,000. The Housing 20 Element recognizes that the high average income levels of the whole of the County of Orange distort 21 the economic segments as defined in state law The high, county -wide average raises the income 22 limits and. in turn, inflates the price of housing that is still considered affordable" AR p. 11556 -57 23 But a minimum wage earner making $6.75 per hour, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, will eam just 24 $14400 This means that five minimum wage jobs are needed for the pleasure of being an 25 "average" income family in Orange County The high "average" income in Orange County also 26 allows the City to assume family earnings of $34,150 (Nearly 3 minimum wage jobs) and still 27 qualify as a very low income home. Thus, the court appropriately reviews the City s "actual 28 compliance" focused on the already inflated lower economic segment. This is the segment that the PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS 1 1 City has ignored historically, and ignored in its multiple draft housing elements. 2 Even under the generous Orange County median income levels, a very low income family 3 can pay no more than $853 in rent or pay a maximum of $100,000 to buy a home. But the average 4 rent in Tustin is $1063.00 per month. A very low income family can't even afford the rent on a one 5 bedroom apartment in Tustin, much less fit into it. AR p. 11543 Condominiums and townhomes 6 are beyond the reach of very low families in Tustin. AR p. 11573 A large family (3 or more 7 persons) who is also very low income can't find a home in Tustin. Id. 8 A low income family earns between 50 and 80% of county median income ($34 141 to 9 $54,640), and can afford to pay $1366 in rent or buy a house worth $160,000 The City finds little 10 rent subsidy is needed for low income renters. AR p. 11557 However, even entry-level `for sale 11 housing like condominiums are beyond the reach of low families in Tustin. AR p. 11573 12 A moderate income family earns between 81% and 120% of county median income ($54,651 13 to $81,959). Programs that are directed to families earning 120% of county median income are 14 therefore providing housing for a person who can earn nearly $82,000.00 per year Not 15 surprisingly the market generally provides housing for the moderate income segment without 16 governmental subsidy AR p. 11606 (Large project affordability gap for moderate income family 17 is $0). Thus, the emphasis of petitioner will be on the most under served segments, the low and 18 very low income families. 19 b. The New Housing Element Shows Disturbing Trends in the Low Income Community 20 The new draft Housing Element makes some strides in providing data for the City that is less 21 than 20 years old. However, that data reveals many areas of inadequate planning for low and very 22 low income housing by the City historically 23 No assisted housing project has been built in the City since 1988. AR pp. 11551 -52. Only 24 10 dwelling units of very low income housing has been built in the City since 1989 AR p. 11601 25 However, City Redevelopment activities have demolished 12 times the number of very low 26 income homes that were built. AR p. 11618 (City needs 124 replacement units for very low 27 income families). The City has been marching vigorously backward in its obligations to very low 28 income families. Orange County as a whole, shares this deplorable history and ranks last out of 45 PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS 2 1 major metropolitan areas in providing affordable housing. AR p. 11534 However, the upper scale 2 east side of Tustin has been largely built out during the last ten years. AR p. 11574 (East Tustin 3 commands greater home prices). With this historically one -sided residential development, the 4 number, as a portion of the population of Tustin households earning more than $100,000 per year 5 has more than doubled over the last decade while the other economic segments have remained 6 relatively stable. AR p. 11528. 7 The East Tustin Specific Plan areas have a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre. 8 AR p. 11284 In Tustin Ranch, only 8 units have resale control through deed restrictions, even 9 attempting to recapture the subsidy which made them affordable to a moderate income first owner 10 AR p. 11290 -91 This is only "quick dry , one - time" affordable ownership housing. 11 The updated analysis in the draft Housing Element shows that the gap between housing costs 12 and low and moderate income families income has further deteriorated. AR p. 11514 (Ownership 13 opportunities are increasingly beyond the reach of the City s low and moderate income families). 14 In the last ten years there has been a surge in housing costs. AR p. 11516. A subsidy of $150,000 15 for a very low income family is required to bridge the gap between the housing market in Tustin the 16 earnings of that family It takes $110,000 in subsidy for a low income family to afford a home in 17 Tustin. AR p. 11359 -60 About 5500 low income families can't afford the rent they are paying in I8 the City AR p. 11265 Rents in Tustin are nearly completely beyond large low income families. 19 AR p. 11515 20 Because of prior commercial development and historically one -sided residential 21 development, there continues to be an imbalance in the available jobs to the available housing in the 22 City of Tustin. AR p. 11263 This is why the 91 Freeway is such a mess, with workers seeking 23 affordable housing in remote locations. The median sales price of a home in the City is $273,000, 24 higher than the county as a whole. Three- fourths of the "for sale" homes in Tustin cost more than 25 $200,000. AR p. 11540 -41 Even condominiums and townhomes are out of the reach of low and 26 very low income families. AR p. 11573 27 The family size in Tustin is getting bigger, due to an increasing Hispanic population. AR pp. 28 11279, 11520 (In 1990, 8.5% of City was Hispanic, while in 2000, 34.2% of the City is Hispanic); PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS 3 1 11281 (Most lower income housing is concentrated in the southwest neighborhoods of the City); 2 11519 (Hispanics have larger families and lower incomes than non - minorities). As of 2000, around 3 11% of the City was comprised of large families in special need for housing. AR pp. 11269 11301 4 Overcrowding for low income families is getting worse over time. AR p. 11278, 11523 -24 (More 5 doubling up with increasing rents). As of 2000, about 1100 low income families lived in 6 overcrowded conditions. AR p. 11264 A massive 86% of the overcrowded families are renters. 7 AR p. 11523 -24 11539 (Renters have lower incomes than homeowners). The lack of an adequate 8 supply of housing is eclipsing all other causes of homelessness. AR p. 11534 Two - thirds of the 9 current homeless are families. AR p. 11270. The housing shortage could not scream any louder for 10 this court's attention. 11 c. The Deficiencies Identified in the Second Amended Petition have not been Cured by the 12 Revisions under Consideration. 13 A housing element consists of three basic parts: 1) an assessment of housing needs and an 14 inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting those needs [Section 65583(a)]; 2) a 15 statement of goals, objectives, and policies to maintain, preserve, improve and develop housing to 16 meet those needs [Section 65583(b)]; and 3) programs which set forth a five year schedule of 17 actions to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives. Section 65583(c). 18 Fundamental to the production of affordable housing, the City must identify adequate sites with 19 appropriate zoning densities to meet the identified needs for low and very low income households. 20 Section 65583(c)(1); HCD Review Letter dated July 3, 2002 (A minimum of 25 dwelling units per 21 acre must be allowed in order for the site to be considered appropriate for low /mod housing). The 22 City must also "address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove constraints to the 23 production of affordable housing. Section 65583(c)(3). Until the City has an adequate housing 24 element, the court must restrict its ability to make land use decisions. Sections 65754 and 65755 25 Petitioner has fully briefed the issues as to the inadequacies of the February 2002 Housing 26 Element that was, and is still operative as this brief is being drafted. He incorporates his moving and 27 reply papers filed for the July 11, 2000 hearing as though fully set forth herein. In short, the 28 February 2002 Amended Housing Element was expressly found deficient by HCD AR pp. 3 et PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS 4 1 seq., 5225' et seq. (HCD administrative rulings that the draft and final adopted February 2002 2 Housing Elements are not in compliance with State law). 3 After the hearing on July 11, 2002, the City has variously produced draft "Revisions to the 4 Amended Housing Element which are dated June 2002 (AR pp. 11249 et seq.) and July 2002 (AR 5 pp 11374 et seq.). The multiple new revisions continue the substantive defects alleged in the 6 Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate ( "SAP "). Counsel for the City did not indicate which 7 draft was submitted for HCD review Declaration of Richard L. Spix, filed herewith. It is 8 noteworthy that the July draft can hardly have been reviewed by HCD prior to issuing its review 9 letter of July 3, 2002. For the remainder of this brief Petitioner will assume that the City will, prior 10 to November 7, 2002, adopt the Housing Element that is the substantial equivalent of the draft dated 11 June 2002.2 12 1. Housing Needs. 13 The SAP alleges a violation of the state law requirement that the housing element quantify 14 the existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. SAP p.2.27 through p. 4.2 and p. 15 8.16 through p. 10.13 The revised housing element continues to fail to adequately identify its low 16 and moderate income need. The City pays "lip service" in the Housing Element's introductory 17 remarks that the need for housing includes "demolition of existing units" AR p. 11259 However, 18 in its calculation of total need, the City does not include any need resulting from its demolition 19 activities. AR p. 11277 According to the draft, the City needs to build 694 very low income units, 20 489 low income homes, and 778 moderate income units based only on the standard regional 21 allocation. Id. But, in the technical memorandum, the City's redevelopment activities are shown 22 to require an additional 124 very low 39 low income, and 39 moderate income "replacement' of 23 demolished units. AR p. 11618 (Estimated Cumulative Replacement Required). Thus, TOTAL 24 very low income need should be 818, low income TOTAL need should be 528 homes, and 25 moderate income TOTAL need should be 817 units. 26 27 28 'Found as the last document in Volume 12 of Petitioner s Administrative Record. 'There may not be a material difference between the June and the July draft housing elements. See Decl. of Richard L. Spix, at page 2, paragraph 2 (Small number of random pages compared with no changes noted. PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS 5 1 restrictions are not a constraint because the zoning densities provide assistance required for 2 lower income households." AR p. 11288. The record contradicts those assertions. 3 The only parcels that meet the required densities are small in -fill sites located in the Old 4 Town area and one 29 acre parcel (of 1650 total acres) on the MCAS. AR. pp. 11287 (Vacant and 5 underutilized land "other than MCAS" is largely in Old Town); 11286 (Planning Area 20 at MCAS 6 is only higher density site identified), 11300 (Affordable housing is to be located in Old Town and 7 MCAS). All other developable land is dedicated to non - affordable housing uses, including the 250 8 acre golf course and country club estates and 10 million square feet of commercial development 9 planned for MCAS. The remaining land in deluxe East Tustin does not meet minimum affordable 10 zoning densities. AR pp. 11284 (East Tustin zoning largely single family detached with a maximum 11 of 10 dua); 11290 -91 (Tustin Ranch contains no listing of very low or low income units and only 12 8 units have deed restrictions, any income limits are not disclosed) 13 Table H -15 [AR p. 11298] of the draft, is supposedly an inventory of suitable in -fill and 14 mixed use sites. It is a sham and a farce. The City claims that the identified parcels allow the 15 construction of 291 dwelling units at the assumed high densities needed for affordability AR p. 16 11284 The identified parcels were reviewed by an expert with more than 27 years of experience 17 overseeing "in fill developments in adjoining Santa Ana. He found that the list of sites contained 18 in Table H -15 is largely unusable and unavailable. Declaration of Al Scales found at AR pp. 11657 19 se seq Look at the pictures [AR pp. 11665 et seq.], the City is proposing to construct housing 20 adjacent to large chemical pressure tanks [AR p. 11674], on narrow strips [AR p. 11668 21 (Parcel not much wider than car parked in front of it, but 300 feet long),° against freeway 22 sound walls, and on sites where new market rate residential and commercial development, 23 some sponsored by the City itself [AR p. 11675 (City sign showing its new water filtering 24 facility)], is now occurring or has already occurred. 25 /// 26 27 28 The table is an embarrassment and a sham. The City has merely attempted to bamboozle °Residential buildings must be set back from five to ten feet from the property line on each side, and 15 to 20 feet in the front of the residence. AR pp. 11560. A narrow parcel as shown is only big enough for a row of tents. PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS 7 State HCD, who must necessarily review the City planing documents from Sacramento. Because of the lack of available alternative sites, additional high density parcels may be required to be located on the MCAS property in order to identify adequate sites. Rather than the 291 units fraudulently calculated by City Staff [AR p. 11284] and counted by HCD towards satisfying the City s need, the City is only able to realistically build a total of 42 dwellings on all sites listed in Table H -15 AR p. 11658. The City must be required to identify adequate high density sites prior to dedicating the vast majority of the remaining developable land within its jurisdiction to non - affordable housing uses. Only one parcel of 29 acres known as Area 20 at the MCAS is zoned for between 16 and 25 dua. AR p. 11286. Even the City knows that market development on that eastern parcel will not meet very low income needs. The City calculates that 588 affordable homes will be built on the 29 4 acres, a density of only 20 dua. Id. Thus, realistic build out on all the MCAS acreage, falls far below the minimum very low income density of 25 dua, and if history continues unabated, may not even meet the low income density required of 18 dua. AR p. 11293 11561 The City's 15% inclusionary requirement is only a restriction of rights on the development of parcels located in a redevelopment area specific plans. AR p. 11294 Even if applied to the entire 29 acres of Area 20 of the MCAS, only 88 (15% of 588) homes are affordable by right at MCAS. And none of that parcel meets the density required for very low income homes. At the rate used in the inclusionary zoning regulation, the City must provide for nearly six times its TOTAL lower income housing needs in order to adequately plan for its historical shrinkage" It is noteworthy that HCD issued its tentative approval of the City's site identification, but kept the City on a 'short leash" annual review, instead of allowing the routine five year planning period. City Request for Judicial Notice, HCD Review Letter Dated July 3 20025 /// /// To ensure the proposed implementation strategies will provide realistic residential 'It is noteworthy that the FAX header of that document shows that it was transmitted to the City on July I 2003, apparently prior to the date it was supposedly written. PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS 8 development opportunities, particularly for higher density development (i.e., at a minimum of 25 dwelling units per acre), the City should utilize the annual review 2 process, [Citations], to monitor new residential development throughout the planning period. Should actual development not meet program objectives, the City should be 3 prepared to (1) identify alternative sites, (2) revise programs and actions, and/or (3) provide additional regulatory and fiscal incentives. 4 The uncontradictable and pervasive development that "does not meet program objectives" 5 for the sites listed in Table H -15, need not wait another year The shortfall of sites means all 2002 6 versions of the Housing Element are not in compliance with state law It is important to note that 7 the City has not finally adopted, and hence cannot have submitted any final Housing Element for 8 review by HCD since the Declaration of Al Scales became available. There can be no presumption 9 of compliance until HCD has reviewed the final adopted element [Section 65589.3], especially in 10 light of the evidence submitted to HCD after its review of some version of the draft housing 11 element 6 Leaving nothing but the fanciful "in fill" parcels and 15% of one 29 acre MCAS parcel 12 for affordable housing cannot meet state law requirements. The City's site inventory is inadequate 13 to meet its real lower income housing needs. 14 3. Constraints. 15 The Petitioner alleges the failure of the City to comply with its duty to address constraints 16 to the production of affordable housing in paragraph 34 of the SAP The constraints to the 17 production of affordable housing are either governmental or non - governmental. The draft fails to 18 adequately identify and address either type. As to the private sector, the largest number of parcels 19 in Table H -15 is owned by John and Mary Prescott. AR pp. 11646 -57 The concentration of 20 ownership in the parcels on Table H -15 has not been identified as a constraint to their availability 21 AR p. 11282. The City has not previously identified the Prescott family as a significant affordable 22 housing "resource [AR pp. 3920-21] and it thus appears that the family is not willing to become 23 the City's largest future provider of low income housing or to dedicate their holdings to income, 24 rent, or resale restrictions required for low income affordability Additionally governmental 25 assistance programs for mixed use developments involve additional complexities in the development 26 27 `HCD considers submissions by third parties during its review of housing elements for compliance. Section 28 65585(c). City's Request for Judicial Notice, HCD Review Letter dated July 3, 2002, p. 1 PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS 9 1 process. The drafts do not identify any agency responsible for overseeing that difficult process. The 2 program is incomplete. 3 Unaddressed governmental constraints to the production and maintenance of affordable 4 housing pepper the drafts. These include: 5 • Without sufficient sites to meet its true need for lower income housing, the City's land use 6 regulations become a constraint to the production of affordable housing, and must be 7 identified and addressed as such. 8 • Goal 3 and underlying Policies discourage the more affordable rental housing and encourage 9 the construction of, and conversion to, less affordable "for sale" condominiums. AR p. 10 11303 "Condomania" prejudices affordability and must be identified and reasonably 11 mitigated. AR pp. 11573, 11577 The conversion of aging housing is also an unidentified 12 constraint to the preservation of that housing as code enforcement must then deal with 100 13 owners instead of just one owner of the complex. 14 • The drafts contain a facially discriminatory policy requiring dispersal of only low or very 15 low income homes. AR p. 11301 (City promotes dispersion "as opposed to [concentration 16 within] any particular project "). Such discrimination directly violates the Federal Fair 17 Housing Laws and is subject to strict judicial scrutiny Park View Heights Corp. v. Citv of 18 Black Jack (8th Cir 1979) 605 F.2d 1033, White v. Davis (1981) 13 Cal.3d 774, AR p. 11 519 19 (City knows that minorities have lower income than non - minorities). In small projects, like 20 in -fill sites for example, this policy places the City "opposed to any four -plex that would 21 be wholly owned and dedicated by a non - profit housing sponsor to very low and low 22 income families, based on the common use of a program that is targeted for the project. 23 Many potential funding sources recited in the Housing Element are project based. Such 24 sources cannot be used for a mixed project containing units of market rate housing. Those 25 limitations have not been identified, or the policy addressed as a constraint to the supply of 26 affordable housing. AR p. 11282 -83 27 The City should be required to identify and mitigate its own illegal and internally inconsistent 28 policies that impede the construction of housing for very low and low income families. PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS 10 1 4. Programs for Production of Housing. 2 The SAP also challenges the inadequacy of programs to meet the requirements of state law 3 SAP p. 4 10 and p. 11.5 through 12.7 The draft element does contain around 140 units of 4 temporary housing as required by the federal base closure law known as the McKinny Act. AR. 5 p. 11535 But, the proposed revision lacks adequate programs for low and moderate income 6 families of the 24,000 permanent workers envisioned by the reuse plan and required by state law 7 Mr. Scales states that unless targeted programs are implemented, .even the potential 42 market 8 rate units [from Table H -15] will not be affordable to low income persons and families. In 9 evaluating the programs, the petitioner posits the following continuing defects: 10 • The policies and their underlying programs that are discussed in the bullets above, are 11 inconsistent with adequate programs and conflict with the provision of housing for "all 12 economic segments of the community " Therefore, the draft housing element is invalid as 13 internally inconsistent. 14 • None of the assisted rental projects in Tustin have any rent restrictions whatsoever AR p. 15 11274 -75 The developers have taken the governmental subsidy without giving any 16 assurance that the project will actually be affordable to the family that occupies the unit. 17 Subsidy programs must include implementation of actual affordability limits. Otherwise the 18 City is only paying a developer to charge whatever rents that the "market" will bear, even 19 though the income restricted resident family cannot afford it. The law requires that the City 20 act to preserve such affordability or the result is merely a gift of public funds. 21 • The programs do not earmark or target any funds to the deteriorating low and very low 22 income segments of the community The City's program language allows "business as 33 usual" with 12 very low income units demolished for every one built. AR pp. 11301 24 (Policy 1 6 available for any segment of "affordable housing "), 11302 (Tax- increment 25 financing may be used for either low or moderate income housing), 11303 (Bond financing 26 for either low or moderate income housing). In fact, the City is proposing to build no new 27 construction of low or very low income units through 2005 outside of the MCAS. AR 28 p. 11309 Continued failure to move forward for all economic segments cannot comply with PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS 11 state law No program is earmarked to turn around the City's historical conduct of net negative production of very low income homes. AR p. 11601 (10 very low income units built), 11618 (City needs 124 replacement units for very low income units removed), compare AR p. 614,' • Many of the supposed programs are ineffective in accomplishing any substantial compliance. Only three "granny flats have been produced from 1989 -97 AR p. 11351 (No indication as to rent levels or income of occupants). Between 1998 -2000 one project received some fee waiver AR p. 11354 (No disclosure if the resulting units were affordable or occupied by income restricted families), 11569 (Fee waivers only minimally affect cost of housing). The "second unit' program is unpopular AR p. 11354 (2 units, no indication of affordability). The recycling program from R 1 zoning to R -3 zoning has only resulted in one unit. AR p. 11355 -56 (No data on affordability). The City's "down payment assistance" program has helped a total of only 8 families. AR p. 11355 Thus, the City has inadequate mitigation for its anti- affordable policy that promotes ownership, rather than rental housing. • The bond financing program is conditioned on the City "having a project ready to move forward." AR p. 11335 However, without a program that jump starts the low income housing providers identified by the City as "Administrative Resources" (AR pp. 656, 3920- 21) with pre- development cost subsidies and other incentives for development, no project will ever be ready to move forward that meets very low and low income affordability The City s programs must involve those low and very low income housing providers, or no such unit will ever be produced. • The in- fill" mixed use program discussed in the site analysis above, is supposed to allow as a matter of right, the development of affordable residential projects on small vacant and underutilized parcels in the City The City includes sites that are commercially zoned in this category of sites based on its commitment to consider a mixed use zone where both Based only on the fact of high density construction, the City did claim to have produced 160 low income units during the prior planning period in the luxurious Tustin Ranch, but HCD disallowed such claim as unsupported by evidence that the dwellings actually were occupied by low income families paying affordable housing costs AR p. 5 PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS 12 residential and commercial uses may occupy the same site. That enabling legislation while promised to be "considered" for years, is nowhere to be seen. AR p. 11338 (Housing Element still says that the City will "consider" a mixed use zoning program). Thus, the City s Housing Element is inconsistent with the City s zoning laws that do not permit such mixed uses, and hence invalid. In HCD's terms, the City continues to lack "programmatic commitment. • The City has spent more than $7 Million scarce tax exempt revenue bonds, on projects that do not contain resale controls which are routinely imposed by way of deed restrictions. AR p. 11331 (Deed restrictions only as "appropriate "). In the entire Tustin Ranch, only 8 units have been found appropriate for deed restrictions. AR p. 11290 -91 The housing element must attempt to recapture any subsidy upon private resale in order to adequately preserve any affordability of the assisted units. Governmental subsidies, through tax losses on the income of bond investors, becomes merely a marketing tool for market -rate condominium developers. This scheme does not comply with the duty admitted by the City to preserve assisted units. AR p. 11516. The City must fund a resale control program to preserve the affordability as is done routinely for subsidized ownership units in many other jurisdictions in Orange County and state -wide. • The MCAS contains 1537 dwelling units that, until the base closed, had been available to the largely low /mod income military personnel. This is enough units to completely satisfy the City's need for very low and low income families. The housing element contains no discussion of, preservation of, or interim availability of that housing. The City proposes merely to exchange more than 1500 previously available low /mod housing units for low density luxury housing. The City capriciously counts it's temporary homeless housing as "new construction" [AR p. 11309], while denying even temporary "new construction status and use to the remainder of the existing homes located on the base. The City explains delays for affordable new construction based on the lack of infrastructure [AR p. 11285], while simultaneously denying use of existing housing with existing infrastructure. /// PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS 13 The programs fails to adequately bridge the gap between the earnings and housing costs of very low and low income families that are in the most desperate need of housing. CONCLUSION The writ should issue as requested and the City required to plan for housing for all economic segments of the community Dated: September 19 2002 Respectfully submitted, Richard L. Spix Attorney for Petitioner PETITIONER'S BRIEF RE JUNE /JULY DRAFTS 14 • 0 CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW EDMOND M. CONNOR LAURA LEE BLAKE CRAIG L. GRIFFIN DAVID J. HESSELTINE MATTHEW J. FLETCHER City of Tustin City Council 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 2600 MICHELSON DRIVE SurrE 1450 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 TELEPHONE (949) 622 -2600 TELEFACSIMILE (949) 622 -2626 E -MAIL econnor @businesslitcom November 4, 2002 VIA HAND DELIVERY Re: Objections to General Plan Amendment 02 -001 and Joint Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Honorable Members of the City Council. In connection with the public hearing to be held on November 4, 2002 by the City of Tustin City Council (the "City Council ") regarding General Plan Amendment 02 -001 ( "GPA 02-001") to revise the Housing Element of the City of Tustin General Plan, we submit this letter of opposition on behalf of our client, the Santa Ana Unified School District ( "SAUSD "). SAUSD hereby objects to GPA 02 -001, and the City Council's proposed action to rely on the "Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station Tustin" (the "FEIS/FEIR ") as the environmental documentation for GPA 02 -001, based upon each and every procedural and substantive objection, comment, contention, or argument which (1) SAUSD previously asserted in objecting to and challenging the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 00 -001 and the certification of the FEIS/FEIR by the City of Tustin (the "City ") on January 16, 2001, including, but not limited to, all objections, comments, contentions, and arguments raised in the "First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate" filed in that certain mandamus proceeding entitled Santa Ana Unified School District, et al. v City of Tustin, et al. Orange County Superior Court Case No. O1 CCO2595, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and the letters which are attached as Exhibits `B" through "G" hereto and are incorporated herein by reference, and (2) have been or will be presented, either orally or in writing, in connection with any public hearing or workshop conducted by the City Council or the City's Planning Commission regarding GPA 02 -001, including, but not limited to, the hearings and workshops conducted on January 13 and 28, February 4, July 22, August 5 and 19, September 3 and 16, October 21, and November 4, 2002. RS CCD\M CA S- LandTmsfr \C itycnc 11. Doc • ONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP • City of Tustin City Council November 4, 2002 Page 2 In addition, SAUSD objects to GPA 02 -001 and the City Council's reliance on the FEIS/FEIR on each of the following grounds: (1) As currently proposed for adoption, GPA 02 -001 violates the provisions of Government Code section 65051.5 and Health and Safety Code section 33492.114 - -Le., Assembly Bill 212, Chapter 123, Statutes 2001 ( "AB 212 ") - -in that it fails to impose the conditions of approval required by such sections to minimize the impact of the City's Reuse Plan for Marine Corps Air Station Tustin ( "MCAS- Tustin ") on SAUSD, among others; and (2) GPA 02 -001 fails to comply with the requirements of the Government Code and all other applicable laws and regulations as more fully asserted in that certain mandamus proceeding entitled Juan Garcia v City of Tustin, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 01CCO2149 Very truly yours, Enclosures RSCC D \MCAS- LandTrnsfr \C Itycncl 1. Doc dmond M. Connor LIST OF EXHIBITS TO OCTOBER 28, 2002 LETTER TO CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION Exhibit "A "• The "First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate" filed on behalf of, inter alia, Santa Ana Unified School District in that certain mandamus proceeding entitled Santa Ana Unified School District, et al. v City of Tustin, et at Orange County Superior Court Case No. 01 CCO2595 Exhibit "B" The January 16, 2001 letter from Edmond M. Connor Esq., Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP, to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin, regarding General Plan Amendment 00 -001 ( "GPA 00 -001 ')and "Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station Tustin (the "FEIS/FEIR "); Exhibit "C" The November 28, 2000 letter from Edmond M. Connor, Esq. Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin, regarding GPA 00 -001 and the FEIS /FEIR, Exhibit "D" The December 18, 2000 letter from M. Andriette Culbertson, President, Culbertson, Adams & Associates, to the City Council, City of Tustin; Exhibit "E" The January 16, 2001 letter from Dwight E. Berg, P.E., Public Economics, Inc. (`PEI "), to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager City of Tustin, Exhibit "F The January 16, 2001 letter from Colette Marie McLaughlin, Planner for SAUSD to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin; and Exhibit "G" The January 16, 2001 letter from Dante Gumucio of PEI to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin. RS CCD/MCAS -Tusti n/Corresp /Exhibits. Doc • EDMOND M. CONNOR, State Bar No 65515 CRAIG L GRIFFIN State Bar No 145777 CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1450 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone (949) 622 -2600 Telefacsimile (949) 622 2626 Attorneys for Petitioners SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RANCHO SANTIAGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT and MARISELA I. ONGACRE Districts exempt from filing 4e under Gov t Code §6103 • SUPERIOR COUP* •T - CALIFORNIA CEN' >c. - CENTER JAN 17 ?on,2 ALAN SLATER, neck C,uo BY L. CLINE ,OE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL ) DISTRICT a School District of the State of ) California, RANCHO SANTIAGO ) COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT a ) Community College District of the State of ) California, and MARISELA LONGACRE an ) individual ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v ) CITY OF TUSTIN a Political Subdivision of ) the State of California, CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF TUSTIN the Duly Elected Legislative Body of the City PLANNING COMMISSION OF CITY OF TUSTIN the Duly Appointed Subagency of the Council and DOES 1 through 25 inclusive Respondents DOES 26 through 50 inclusive ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Real Parties in Interest. ) RSCCD /NICAS /Amd -Writ Doc 1 CASE NO 01CCO2595 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE ROBERT H GAI LIVAN Department C28 FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate 1 2 3 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • • As a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate (the `First Amended Petition ") against (1) respondents CITY OF TUSTIN (` Tustin "), CiTY COUNCIL OF C1 FY OF TUS 1 IN (the `City Council "), PI ANNING COMMISSION OF Ci 1 Y OF TUS FiN (the Planning Commission "), and DOES 1 through 25 inclusive (hereinafter, 1 ustin, the City Council. the Planning Commission, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, ire sometimes collectively referred to is the "City "), and (2) real parties in interest DOES 26 through 50. inclusi e (collectively, "Real Parties') petitioners SANTA ANA UNIFIED SC1 -1001 DIS 1 RIC I ( SAUSD "), RANCHO SANTIAGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DIS 1 RIC 1 ( RSCCD") and MARiSELA LONGACRE ( "Longacre') [hereinafter SAUSD and RSCCD are sometimes collectively referred to as the "Districts , the Districts and Longacre are sometimes collectively referred to as "Petitioners' ] allege as follows 1 SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED PETITION In deciding who should benefit from the proposed redevelopment of ONer 1,600 acres of surplus federal 1 ind which formerly comprised the Marinc Corps Air Station it Tustin California ( "MCAS I ustin ), the City of Tustin has now set in motion i plan to ensure that no school children from Santa Ana will share in this windfall gift from the U 5 Navy 2 In fact, by showing no concern for such basic legal concepts as fairness Justice, and equality, the City has chosen to widen the gap between the haves and thc "has c nots' by adopting a general plan amendment for the reuse of MCAS- fustin which sets 'side nearly 200 acres of tree land to accommodate the construction of new schools and facilities for three school districts which have substantial white student populations and do not hive critical need for such land 3 Regrettably, however, the City's general plan amendment for MCAS Tustin fails to designate even one square inch of land at the base for thc two Districts In Santa Ana which face severe overcrowding problems and have student populations which are predominantly Hispanic/Latino 2 RSCCD /MCAS /Amd Wrn Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of M•mdate • • 4 Indeed despite openly admitting that its plans to redevelop MCAS - 2 Tustin will potentially generate hundreds and hundreds of new students for SAUSD s 3 horribly- overcrowded schools, the City has approved a Final Environmental impact Report (the FEIS /FEIR ") for its general plan amendment which cynically concludes that SAUSD will just have to deal with those overcrowding problems itself and should not expect any help from the City in setting aside any surplus federal land at the base for new school sites to mitigate such impacts "Such physical impacts may be significant and, if so, mitigation would be the responsibility of the SAUSD " (FEIS /FEIR at 4 -63 to 4 -64 ) 5 Of course, the City has not only sought to wash its hands of any responsibility for addressing the horrendous problems which the proposed build -out of MCAS - Tustin will create for SAUSD but the City has also chosen to ignore the student generation impacts which such redevelopment will have on the community college facilities operated by RSCCD In short, the City has turned a deaf ear to RSCCD s concerns that its already- overcrowded facilities at Santa Ana College will not be able to accommodate the thousands of additional new students that will potentially be generated by the City s Reuse Plan for MCAS- Tustin. 6 By approving its general plan amendment for MCAS- Tustin (hereinafter referred to as 'GPA 00 -001 ) without (1) adequately addressing the severe adverse impacts which the redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin will have on public schools and facilities within the two Districts, and (2) adopting all feasible mitigation measures to help minimize those student generation impacts on the Districts, the City has clearly violated the dictates of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA ') and the State CEQA Guidelines 7 Although at one point in the FEIS /FEIR the City admits that the student generation impacts on the two Districts may result m physical changes which may be significant," the FEIS /FEIR inexplicably concludes that the project impacts on the Districts will not be significant and, thus do not require any mitigation in the form of new school sites at the base However it is obvious that, by employing patently unreasonable planning assumptions, the City has purposely sought to understate the number of new students which 3 RSCCD /MCAS /Amd- Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • will be added to the Districts schools and facilities when MCAS- Tustin is redeveloped in order to avoid the need to mitigate these impacts. 8 For example although the City readily concedes in the FEIS /FEIR that 24 852 "direct jobs and 15 081 indirect and induced' jobs will be created by its massive redevelopment project at MCAS- Tustin the City has made the arbitrary and capricious assumption that, under a worst case scenario only four percent (4 %) of the workers who will fill these new jobs will reside in homes located within the City of Santa Ana. 9 In other words even though a significant number of the new jobs that will he generated by the build -out of MC AS- Tustin will he service retail clerical and warehouse jobs that tend to offer low to moderate pay and even though Santa Ana would appear to offer the hest source of affordable housing for the workers who will fill these new jobs at the base the City has refused to consider the very real possibility that, under worst case conditions far more than 4% of these workers will end up residing in Santa Ana and will then need to send their children to SAUSD s schools to be educated- thereby exacerbating the terribly overcrowded conditions which presently exist at all of SAUSD s schools 10 As explained below the City's projected range of 82 to 509 additional students that will be generated for the SAUSD school system as a result of the redevelopment of MC AS- Tustin grossly underestimates the true impacts of the project and is simply indefensible. 11 By incorporating more reasonable, real life assumptions into the same methodologies used by the City in arriving at the student generation estimates set forth in the FEIS /FEIR, it can he seen that the City s estimates are understated by at least a factor of 10 What that means. for example, is that, instead of 509 additional students it would he more reasonable to assume that approximately 5,600 new students could be added to SAUSD s already overcrowded school facilities under a worst case analysis of the build -out of MC AS- Tustin. 4 RSCCD /MCAS /Amd -Writ Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • 12 What is even more difficult to understand than the City s unreasonably low estimates of student generation impacts on the Districts is how the City proposes to deal with these impacts Indeed, the City has seen fit to provide 180 acres of surplus federal land at MCAS- Tustin for new school sites for the Tustin Unified School District ( "TUSD "), the Irvine Unified School District (`IUSD'') and the South Orange County Community College District ( "SOCCCD ") but has failed and refused to provide this same accommodation to SAUSD and RSCCD to help mitigate the student generation impacts which will severely affect them. 13 Petitioners can only wonder aloud how it is that, with a net increase of 302 new students resulting from the redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin, IUSD- -which has a 59% white student population -- qualifies to receive a 20 -acre school site at the base but SAUSD with a 92% Hispanic /Latino population, is to be given no land at the base to construct facilities to compensate for the 509 new students which the FEIS /FEIR openly admits could be added to SAUSD s school system when MCAS Tustin is redeveloped 14 In this same regard, Petitioners must question why the FEIS /FEIR provides that SOCCCD will be awarded the entire 100 -acre Learning Village parcel designated in GPA 00 -001 even though SOCC CD already has a vast amount of unused land available at its other campuses In fact, SOCCCD- which has a 63.5% white student population - -has some 300 acres of land available to it at its two campuses to serve the needs of some 33,000 students, but RSCCD has only 110 acres at its two campuses to accommodate 52,000 students (only 23% of which are white and 49% of which are Hispanic /Latino) 15 Sadly the City s failure and refusal to provide answers to these questions and to properly analyze and mitigate the environmental impacts associated with its massive development plans for MCAS- Tustin have left Petitioners with no choice but to seek judicial relief under CEQA and the State C EQA Guidelines to compel the City to vacate its approval of GPA 00 -001 and the FEIS /FEIR. 5 RSCCD /NICAS /Amd -Writ Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • 1 16 In addition to seeking redress for the serious CEQA violations detailed 2 below Petitioners are also seeking relief under the California Government Code to require the City to set aside its approval of GPA 00 -001 and to withhold reapproN al of that project 4 until the C ity has adopted a revised Housing Element for its General Plan which fully 5 complies with the requirements of the Government Code 6 17 At the time that the City approved GPA 00 -001 at the public hearing held 7 on January 16 2001 the City s Housing Element had not been properly revised and readopted 8 before the expiration of the statutory deadline of December 11 2000 for updating that 9 document Accordingly the Housing Element was legally invalid at the time the City 10 approved GPA 00 -001 and that, in turn, rendered invalid any and all project approvals which 11 were based thereon, such as GPA 00 -001 12 18 In addition, the Housing Element suffered from numerous deficiencies, 13 such as grossly outdated data and projections regarding the affordable housing needs relating 14 to the City in general and to MCAS- Tustin in particular 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 Incredibly although the California Department of Housing and Community Development ( "HDC') had declared as early as November 2000 that there were numerous respects in which the City s Housing Element was not in compliance with the dictates of the Government Code the City simply ignored the deficiencies cited in writing by 1 -1CD and acted as if there was absolutely nothing wrong with its Housing Element in adopting GPA 00 -001 The City s conduct in this regard was decidedly illegal and its approval of GPA 00 -001 must be set aside as requested below [I GENERAL ALLEGATIONS A. The Parties 20 SAUSD is now and at all times herein mentioned was, a school district of the state of California. SAUSD is one of three school districts whose boundaries include portions of the former Marine Corps Air Station at Tustin ( "MCAS- Tustin ') At least 122 acres of undeveloped land at MC AS-Tustin fall within SAUSD s boundaries 6 RSCCD /AICAS /Amd- Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for writ of Mandate • • 21 RSCCD is now and at all times herein mentioned was, a community college district of the state of California. The same 122 acres of undeveloped land at MCAS- Tustin which lie within SAtJSD s boundaries also lie within RSCCD s boundaries covering the base 22 Longacre is and at all times mentioned herein was, a homeowner and resident of the City Longacre has paid taxes to the City within one year prior to the filing of this action, and is beneficially interested in the issuance of the relief requested herein. 23 Petitioners allege on information and belief that Tustin is now and at all times mentioned herein was, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of California and situated in Orange County California. 24 Petitioners allege on information and belief that the City Council is now and at all times mentioned herein was, the duly elected legislative body of the City organized and existing under the laws of the state of California. 25 Petitioners allege on information and belief that the Planning Commission is nOw and at all times mentioned Herein was, the duly appointed planning subagency of the City Council organized and existing under the laws of the state of C aliforma. 26 The true names and capacities, whether individual corporate or otherwise, of the respondents sued herein as DOES 1 through 25 inclusive are presently unknown to Petitioners, which therefore sue such respondents by such fictitious names Petitioners will seek leave of Court to amend this First Amended Petition to show the true names and capacities of such respondents when such information is ascertained 27 Each respondents sued herein as DOES 1 through 25 inclusive performed participated in, or abetted in some manner the acts and omissions alleged herein, is responsible for the violations of law described hereinbelow, and is subject to the relief sought herein 2K The City was the sole project proponent for GPA 00 -001 and the certification of the FEIS /FEIR, and Petitioners have no information or belief as to the 7 RSCCD /DICAS /Amd -Writ Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • existence or identity of any other project proponents or applicants in addition to the City Moreover Petitioners have no information or belief as to the existence or identity of any persons or entities (1) who if absent from this Action, will prevent complete relief from being afforded to the parties herein or (2) who claim interests relating to the subject of the Action and are so situated that the disposition of the Action in their absence may as a practical matter impair or impede their ability to protect such interests 29 To the extent that any persons or entities exist (1) whose absence from this Action will prevent complete relief from being afforded to the parties herein or (2) who claim interests relating to the subject of the Action and are so situated that the disposition of the Action in their absence may as a practical matter impair or impede their ability to protect such interests Petitioners are presently unaware of their true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or otherwise and therefore sue such persons or entities herein as DOES 26 through 50 inclusive Petitioner will seek leave of Court to amend this First Amended Petition to show the true names and capacities of DOES 26 through 50 inclusive when, and if such information is ascertained 13. Factual Background 30 Approximately ten years ago the United States Congress enacted the Defense Base Closure and Redevelopment Act of 1990 which set forth guidelines and procedures for the closure and reuse of military installations. As part of the base closure process, MCAS- Tustin was ordered to be operationally closed by July 1999 31 Federal law provides local agencies the opportunity to develop a reuse plan that will guide the disposal actions of the armed forces branch responsible for the military installations to be closed In July 1992 the Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment, approved the City as the Local Redevelopment Authority (the `LRA') for MCAS- Tustin. 32 In its capacity as the LRA for MCAS- Tustin the City participated in the creation of the `Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan" (the 8 RSCCD /t`iCAS /Amd- Wnt.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • Reuse Plan'), which was approved by the City in its capacity as the LRA for MCAS- Tustin in October 1996 and which was thereafter amended by the City in September 1998 33 The Reuse Plan proposes that the 1 606 -acres of land presently encompassed by MCAS- Tustin (the Property ') he developed for inter cilia approximately 10 million square feet of commercial /business uses (including a golf village with hotel and ancillary retail sites) 4 600 residential units, four public schools, and a Learning Village campus 34 The Reuse Plan also makes recommendations regarding how and to whom the Navy should convey the Property for development and reuse In particular it recommends that over 1,200 of the 1 600 acres at MCAS- Tustin be conveyed directly to the City for it to inter ilia sell or lease to commercial industrial and residential developers 35 Li furtherance of that recommendation the City submitted its Economic Development C onveyance Application (the EDC Application ') to the Navy in or about February 1999 requesting that the Navy convey approximately 1,288 acres of real property at MCAS- Tustin to the City at no cost 36 In an effort to comply with (a) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U S L § 4121 et seq ) [ NEPA] and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEP A (40 C.F.K. Part 1500 et seq ) and (b) the California Environmental Quality Act ( CUM.) [Cal Pub Res. Code § 21000 et seq ] and the State CEQA Guidelines (the `CEQA Guidelines ) [Title 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15000 et seq.], the C ity and the United States Department of the Navy jointly prepared a combined Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Environmental Impact Report (the `FEIS /FEIR'), which purported to identify analyze, and mitigate the proposed environmental impacts associated with the redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin in accordance with the City s Reuse Plan for that military base As the first major step in implementing its Reuse Plan, the City prepared General Plan Amendment No 00 -001 ( GP 1 00 -001 ') to modify certain elements of the C itv s General Plan to accommodate future land -use planning for the base 9 RSC('D /NiC \S /Amd - \ynt Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • t 38 On November 28 2000 the Planning Commission conducted a public 2 hearing on GPA 00 -001 At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted 3 a resolution recommending that the City Council approve GPA 00 -001 a 39 On January 16 2001 a public hearing was held by the City Council to 5 consider GPA 00 -001 and the FEIS /FEIR Approximately 80 people submitted public 6 comments at the hearing, expressing views both in favor of and in opposition to the 7 proposed project Al the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council adopted resolutions x approving both GPA 00 -001 and the FEIS /FEIR. 40 In July 2001 the California State Legislature adopted and the Governor to signed Assembly 13i11 No 212 (' AB 212 "), which added section 65051 5 to the Government I I Code and section 33492 114 to the Health and Safety Lode AB 212 was adopted to ensure 12 that, after the land at MCAS- Tustin is conveyed by the Navy and the City proceeds to 13 authorize the development of that property a portion of the land at the base will be used to 14 relieve the conditions of severe overcrowding which exist at the Districts facilities and to Is 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 74 25 26 27 28 otherwise mitigate the student generation impacts on the Districts that will occur as a result of the redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin pursuant to the Reuse Plan 41 Petitioners have exhausted all of their administrative remedies or the exhaustion of such remedies would have been futile Petitioners have no plain speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law other than the relief sought in this First Amended Petition 10 RSCCD /MC AS /Anil -Wnt Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • • FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Against The City And Real Parties For A Writ Of Mandate And Injunctive Relief Based On Violations Of CEQA And The CEQA Guidelines) A The FP-IS/FEW Fails To Adequately Identify The Severe Adverse Impacts Which GPA 00 -001 Will Have On Public Schools And Facilities Within The Districts. d2 Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 41 inclusive as set forth above 43 SAUSD currently operates a total of 54 schools - -36 elementary schools. nine middle schools six high schools and three specialty schools As expressly recognized by the FIGS /FEIR virtually all of the 54 schools within SAUSD are oercrovded. 44 The California Department of Education ( `CDE') has set forth recommended average student per acre ratios for schools within the State For elementary schools CDE recommends an average of 84 7 students /acre SAUSD averages 159 7 students /acre, or almost double the CFD recommendation. For middle schools CDE recommends an average of 72 2 students /acre SAUSD averages 101 4 students /acre For high schools CDL recommends an average of 47 9 students /acre SAUSD averages 90.2, again almost double the recommended students per acre dcnsit\ 45 As a result of this severe overcrowding, SAUSD has been relocating students to portables (otherwise known as relocatable trailers ) Specifically overcrowding has forced SAUSD to relocate approximately 24 000 of its almost 58 000 students to some 912 portables. 46 In addition overcrowding has forced SAUSD to go to a multi- tracked year round calendar at 25 of its elementary schools and four of its intermediate schools As noted in a recent newspaper report there exists a growing concern in California that 12 month multi track schedules in poor and minority communities such as SAUSD -- "present 11 RSCCD /MLAS /Amd- Wrii.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • students with hurdles that do not exist at other schools and may `take a cumulative toll on 2 learning, spawning what many call a two- tiered system of education. 47 As noted above the proposed redevelopment of MICAS Tustin will be of 4 mammoth proportions. In effect the military base will be replaced by a huge master - planned s community The FEIS /FEIR projects that the Reuse Plan will directly generate 24 852 new r, jobs indirectly generate 1S 081 new jobs, and create up to 37 468 construction jobs, for a 7 total of 77 400 new jobs x 48 In an attempt to determine the impacts that these additional jobs will 9 have upon the school facilities within SAUSD the City commissioned a report entitled 10 Updated Report on the School Facility Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the MC AS u Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Ana Unified School District (the 12 `Household Growth Report ) 13 49 I3ased upon the projected number of new jobs being created by the Reuse 14 Plan and certain assumptions regarding demographics, the Household Growth Report provides 15 an estimate, adopted by the FFIS /FEIR that the Reuse Plan will add between 82 to 509 new 16 students to SAUSD 17 50 Based upon the estimates adopted from the Housing Growth Report. the is FEIS /FEIR concludes that the Reuse Plan will have no capacity impacts upon SAUSD 19 lccordingly the FEI' /FEIR concludes that no mitigation will he required 20 51 However the FEIS /FEIR s projected range of 82 to 509 additional 21 students to he generated for the SAUSD school system as a result of the redevelopment of 22 MC AS-Tustin is simply not credible because it is based on arbitrary capricious, and factually 23 unsupported assumptions which have materially skewed the results. Indeed, even at first 24 blush, the conclusion adopted by the FEIS /FEIR that as few as 82 new students might be 25 added to SAUSD s schools as a result of 77,400 new jobs being created at the base is patently 26 unsound 27 52 In respon0e to many misleading statements contained in recent staff 28 reports prepared fry the City the Districts commissioned the preparation of a study by Public 12 RSCCD /NICAti /Arnd -writ Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • t Economics, Inc for Petitioners (the `PEI Study ') to analyze the student generation impacts 2 discussed in such staff reports The PFi Study which was submitted to the City prior to 3 action being taken on (SPA 00 -001 confirms that the student impacts predicted by the 4 FEIS /FEIR are grossly underestimated 5 53 By incorporating more reasonable assumptions into the same 6 methodologies used by the City s consultants in arriving at the student generation estimates 7 set forth in the FEIS /FEIR PEI was able to generate a new range of estimates to better define s the number of students that will potentially be added to SAUSD s schools when the City s 9 Reuse Plan is implemented n 54 The calculations performed by PEI based on the same formulas 11 employed by the City s consultants show that the estimates set forth in the FEIS /FEIR are 12 understated by a factor of 10 instead of a range of 82 to S09 additional students, the t3 redevelopment of i\9(.AS- Tustin can he expected to generate a low of 741 new students, and a 14 high of S 581 new students that will be added to SAUSD s already overcrowded school 15 facilities 16 55 One of the most glaring problems with the Housing Growth Report upon 17 which the FEiS /FEIR is based is that it fails- in calculating the 'Scenario 1 upper range 18 estimate to include the same factor it uses in calculating the `Scenario 2' lower range 19 estimate Specifically in arriving at the 'Scenario 2 estimate of 82 new students, the 20 Housing Growth Report recognizes that there is a multiplier effect so that, for every job 21 directly created by the Reuse Plan. there are 0 61 jobs indirectly created In setting the high 22 end of the projected range of student generation impacts at 509 students, the report uses only 21 24 25 26 27 28 directlt created jobs and fails to take into account any jobs created indirectly 56 Since the FEIS /FEIR clearly concedes that the City s Reuse Plan for NC AS- Tustin will result in 24 8S2 direct jobs and 15 081 indirect and induced' jobs (see, Table 4 2 2 at p 4 -18) there is no rational justification for why the same 0 61 multiplier for this second category of indirect and induced' jobs would have been omitted from the City s calculations for 'Scenario I but included in its calculations for 'Scenario 2 13 RSCCD /t,1CASi.Amd -Writ Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • 57 Once the City s calculations for `Scenario 1 are adjusted to account for 2 the proper number of indirect and induced' dubs to be generated by the redevelopment of 3 MC,AS- Tustin, it is clear that the supposed worst case scenario for the student generation a impacts to SAUSD is off by a factor of over 60% and this can hardly be considered to be an 5 insignificant error that can be disregarded In fact this miscalculation is so material that, by 6 itself it requires the F17.IS /1713IR to be supplemented and recirculated for public review and 7 comment 8 58 Although it is unclear whether the 1- lousing Growth Report s failure to 9 factor in the student generation impacts caused by indirectly created jobs was inadvertent or to intentional correctly calculating the high range estimate increases it from 509 students to 817 11 12 students 59 A second major flaw in the 1-lousing Growth Report estimate is the 13 unreasonable assumption that only 3 8% of the workers filling the new lobs being created by 14 the Reuse Plan will live in Santa Ana This assumption is based entirely upon a statistic 15 demonstrating that 3 8% of the countywide housing growth will be captured by Santa Ana. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 60 In using the 3 8 figure the report fails to take into consideration that Santa Ana is immediately adjacent to the Reuse Plan area. The report also fails to take into consideration that a significant number of the jobs being created are low to moderate paying fobs, and that most of the new housing construction in the Reuse Plan area and South Orange County will be upscale single family, dwellings beyond the reach of the workers filling those jobs 61 The third major flaw in the 1- Lousing Growth Report is its reliance upon 23 the unsupported assumption that only 10% of the 24 853 non - construction jobs directly 21 created by the Reuse Plan will be new In other words, the report assumes (a) 90% of the 25 jobs at the MCAS- Tustin site will involve firms which relocate from elsewhere in Orange L6 County (b) all of the fobs w111 be filled with the same employees as at present and (c) none 27 of these same employees will relocate their residence in order to be nearer to their new job ' -8 location Moreover the report assumes that no businesses will fill in the millions of square 14 RSCCD /N1CAS /Amd- Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 ]4 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • • feet of existing business space being vacated by the businesses relocating to the Reuse Plan area, and that such space will remain vacant indefinitely These assumptions are unsupported by substantial evidence and are arbitrary and capricious 62 Inasmuch as the FEIS /FEIR relies upon assumptions which are arbitrary capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence the FEIS /FEIR fails to adequately identify significant capacity impacts upon SAUSD Accordingly the FEIS /FEIR violates CEQ A and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to section 15126 2 of the Guidelines. B The City s Own Estimates Demonstrate That Student Generation Impacts On SAUSD Will Result In Significant Physical Environmental Impacts. 63 As set forth above the build -out of the City s Reuse Plan for MCAS- Tustin could generate up to 5 581 new students for SAUSD It is beyond dispute that the addition of over 5 500 new students to the seriously overcrowded SAUSD school system would require extensive new facilities to be constructed. 64 However regardless of whether one accepts PEI s worst case projection of 5 581 new students for SAUSD or the Housing Growth Report s worst case estimate of SW) (or 817 as properly calculated) students it is clear that the redevelopment of MC AS- Tustin will require the construction of new facilities by SAUSD which will in turn result in significant physical impacts upon the environment 65 Indeed the FEIS /FEIR itself expressly acknowledges that (a) SAUSD school facilities are severely overcrowded, (h) the Reuse Plan could add hundreds of new students to SAUSD and (c) the construction of new facilities by SAUSD could have a significant physical impact upon the environment Despite these express acknowledgments, however the FEIS /FEIR does not even attempt to identify the extent or nature of these physical environmental impacts 15 RSCCD /hICAS,Amd -Writ Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • 66 Instead of properly seeking to identify those physical impacts and discuss z possible mitigation, the PEIS /HEIR completely avoids the issue by labeling its own expert s 3 estimate of student generation on SAUSD as speculative as follows 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 14 15 16 'Since the need for new facilities is not yet confirmed there is no facility design or location that could be evaluated in this E1S /E1R for physical impacts on the environment Such physical impacts may be significant and, if so mitigation would be the responsibility of the SAUSD 67 Accordingly the FEIS /FEIR concludes that because the need for new facilities is not yet confirmed there can be no facility design or location to be evaluated. 68 Contrary to this conclusion however the FFIS /FEIR does not consider as speculation its projection that 24 852 new jobs (1) will be created directly on the base and (2) will result in new households being drawn into the Santa Ana area as new workers seek affordable housing in the general vicinity of their employment. Similarly the FFIS /FEIR does not deem as speculation its projection that the Reuse Plan will indirectly generate an additional 15 081 jobs in the area surrounding MC AS- Tustin 69 In the January 16 2001 Agenda Report for GP \ 00 -001 City staff introduced an entirely new standard for determining whether the student general impacts 17 associated with the build -out of MCAS - Tustin would rise to the level of significant effects IX 19 20 which would need to be identified in the I EIS /HEIR and for which adequate mitigation measures would need to be proposed 70 What staff suggested in the Agenda Report but which was not discussed 21 in the FEIS /hEIR was that student generation impacts would not be considered significant 22 unless they required the construction of an entirely new St h00/ at the elementary 23 intermediate, or high school level In this regard City staff made the following observations 24 in the Agenda Report 25 The PEIS /HEIR states only that based on the assumption that perhaps new employees at the former MCAS Tustin site might 26 seek new housing within the SAUSD there is the potential for an indirect impact on the SAUSD from the MCAS Tustin project To 27 bracket the range of probable indirect impacts. the City s experts presented an estimate using two scenarios I3oth scenario 1, a 28 highly unlikely worst case scenario. and scenario 2, the more likely scenario, were prepared for the FEIS /FEIR Based on the 16 RSCCD /MCAS /Amd -Wrn Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate projectidTls under each scenario of household owth, either 509 1 students might be generated over a 20 year period (scenario 1) or 82 students (scenario 2) over the same period Based on SAUSD 2 student generation information, 78% of any indirect potential impact to SAUSD would be in grades K 8 with over 50% of this 3 impact in grades K 5 (under either scenario) With an average K 5 elementary school built to accommodate 800 students, the average 4 middle school built to accommodate 1560 students and the average high school built to accommodate 2400 students, neither of the 5 indirect impact scenarios examined substantiates allocation of an entire school site at MCAS Tustin as requested by the SAUSD " 6 (Emphasis added ) 7 71 The clear implication of the above- quoted passage from the January 16th s Agenda Report is that, if either of the indirect impact scenarios discussed in the FEIS /FEIR 9 indicated that at least 800 new students would be generated for the SAUSD school system by 10 the redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin, then the City would have to agree that such an impact 11 would be significant and would require an entire school site at MCAS - Tustin to he 12 provided as mitigation 13 72 As noted above the calculations performed by the City s consultants in 14 projecting the 509 additional students under scenario 1 discussed in the FEIS /FEIR, 15 inexplicably omitted a factor which, if included, would raise its projection to 817 new 16 students This, obviously would exceed the City s 800- student threshold. Of course, the 17 City s 800 student threshold has no statutory or case law basis under CR/A for establishing a 18 significant impact requiring mitigation 19 73 Given the overcrowded conditions already existing within SAIJSD 20 schools, and the overwhelming evidence that the Reuse Plan will generate hundreds and even 21 thousands of new students for SAUSD the need for SAUSD to build additional facilities as a 22 result of the Reuse Plan is far from speculative it is inevitable and unavoidable 23 74 Moreover the FEiS /FE1R s observation that there is no identified 24 location for a new school within SAUSD obscures a key environmental issue A large part of ' -5 the problem faced by SAUSD in seeking to alleviate overcrowding is that the vast majority of 26 the District lies within the City of Santa Ana, which is heavily built out 27 75 Accordingly although the population density of Santa Ana continues to 28 steadily rise as families -- including immigrants seeking employment opportunities in the area- 17 RSCCD /MCAS'Amd -W nt Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • -move into housing units vacated by older empty nest residents contiguous open space of a size sufficient to build schools is virtually non - existent. 76 The FEIS /FEIR avoids providing any clue as to where new school facilities could be located precisely because any attempt to identify possible sites would reveal severe and unavoidable impacts to the physical environment For example obtaining 10 acres (for an elementary school) to 40 acres (for a high school) for the construction of a new educational facility would likely require condemnation of existing commercial residential or parkland uses 'fhe change in existing uses would bring a host of direct and indirect environmental impacts including, inter n /in changes in noise levels traffic patterns air pollution, drainage and even wildlife habitats if for example parkland is taken 77 Because the FEIS /FEIR does not even attempt to identify or address the significant physical environmental impacts which would result from student generation within SAUSD caused by the Reuse Plan the FEiS /FEiR violates C ED and the CFQA Guidelines including, but not limited to section 15126 2 of the Guidelines C The FEIS /FEIR Is Devoid Of Any Analysis Of Student Generation Impacts On RSCCD, And The Physical Environment Impacts Associated Therewith. 78 Not only does Ole FEIS /FEIR leave main unanswered questions regarding impacts on SAUSD but it also completely- ignores the student generation impacts which will be felt by RSCCD when MCAS- 'Tustin is redeveloped 79 Like SAUSD RSCCD is currently experiencing severe overcrowding in its facilities With 56 acres and 20 000 full time equivalent students, Santa Ina College is the third smallest in size and the sixth largest in enrollment out of 107 community colleges in the state of California. In fact Santa Ana College enrollment is greater than every campus of the California State University and the University of California systems 80 Enrollments at RSCCD have increased 45% in the past five years and, as a result RSCCD has been forced to lease scores of off site facilities at churches hospitals, 18 RSCCD /NICAS /Amd- wnt.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 i2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 • • schools and commercial buildings to accommodate the huge influx of predominantly minority students. 81 Like SAUSD RSCCD has also been forced to rely upon portable classrooms to accommodate its students At present there are as many portable /relocatable classrooms at Santa Ana College as there are permanent buildings on campus 82 In the January 16 2001 Agenda Report, City staff attempts to Justify this glaring omission by offering the explanation that its EIR consultant had no prior experience in projecting indirect impacts on a community college district. Accordingly the City staff concludes that `there is no feasible way to evaluate indirect impacts of the Reuse Plan on RSCCD 83 Despite the unsupported comments of staff however there was and is a feasible way to evaluate the indirect impacts of the Reuse Plan upon RSCCD As set forth in a letter sent by PEI to the City prior to its adoption of GPA 00 -001 by simply modifying the methodologies employed by the City s consultants in the FEIS /FEIR, it is possible to make a reasonable estimate as to the range of additional full time students that will be added to RSCCD s system as a result of the redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin 84 Using these methodologies, PEI projects that the City s Reuse Plan for 'ACAS-Tustin will generate up to 2,270 new full -time community college students for RSCCD 20 85 In light of the severe overcrowding being experienced by RSCCD the 21 additional students generated by the Reuse Plan will require the construction of additional 22 facilities As with the facility construction within SAUSD the construction of additional 23 educational facilities within RSCCD will have substantial and severe physical environmental 24 impacts None of these impacts have been noted or discussed in the FEIS /FEIR 25 86 Because the FE1S /FEIR does not even attempt to identify or address the 26 significant physical environmental impacts which would result from student generation within 27 RSCCD caused by the Reuse Plan, the FEIS /FEIR violates CEQA and the LEQA Guidelines, 28 including, but not limited to, section 15126.2 of the Guidelines 19 RSCCD /MCAS /Amd -Writ Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • D Based On An Erroneous Interpretations Of State Law (Senate Bill 50), The City Failed And Refused To Even Consider The Possibility Of Designating New School Sites At MCAS- Tustin To Mitigate Student Generation Impacts On The Districts. 87 The key assumption underlying the entire analysis in the 17131S/FEIR regarding which mitigation measures are available to mitigate student generation impacts on the Districts is that the sole mitigation measure permitted by state law is the assessment of development fees on the ultimate developers of the Property 88 As demonstrated by the following statements from the January 16 2001 Agenda Report the City staff interpreted Senate Bill No 50 (' S13 50 which became effective after the City approved the Reuse Plan and the 1998 amendment thereto excluding the Districts from MCAS- Tustin - as prohibiting the City from designating any new school sites at MCAS - Tustin to mitigate the student generation impacts of the Reuse Plan on the Districts `Except for paying school impacts fees (that will be required as part of the project) a new development is not required to build or provide sites for new schools (California Government Code Section 65995) (Attachment 6 to January 16 2001 \genda Report at p 3 ) `Finally since Goleta and El Dorado were decided the obligation of a development project to mitigate impacts on schools has been completely revised The State is now responsible under 513 50 for financing new schools and mitigating the impacts of land use approvals (see California Government Code Section 65995(e)) (Id at p 4 ) `Even if mitigation was warranted, State law prohibits conditioning projects to require that land be provided for schools (Cal Gov t Code Section 65995) (1d ) `CEQA does not require the provision of land as mitigation of significant impacts [upon schools] and in fact 513 50 precludes such a requirement " (Id at p 7 ) `School issues are influenced by the provisions of SB 50 that preclude mandating dedication of school sites (Id ) 20 RSCCD /MCAS /Amd -Writ Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • 89 Contrary to the City s interpretation of SB 50 that statute does not in 2 any way change, limit, or eliminate the City s obligations under CEQA and the CEQA 3 Guidelines to mitigate the adverse impacts that the Reuse Plan will have on the Districts 4 90 SB 50 was intended to limit and control the nature and extent of school s facility fees and exactions that local agencies can levy or impose in connection with 6 development projects proposed by real estate developers 7 91 S13 50 was never intended to apply to the federal base closure and reuse 8 process relating to MCAS Tustin. Under that process, the City as the LRA, was required to 9 prepare the Reuse Plan for the redevelopment of the surplus federal land that is to be to conveyed by the United States in closing MCAS - Tustin. The City s approval of (iPA 00 -001 11 in support of the Reuse Plan did not involve the imposition of the type of conditions or 12 exactions on real estate developers which are proscribed by SB SO 3 92. The preparation and approval of a Reuse Plan for a military base is an 14 activity which is expressly subject to CEQA (see sections 21083 8 and 21083 8 1) and there is is no basis for asserting that the State Legislature intended that SB 50 could he used by LRAs. 16 such as the City to circumvent the requirements of CEQA To the contrary 513 50 expressly 17 states that it shall not he interpreted to limit or prohibit the authority of a local agency to 18 reserve or designate real property for a schoolsite (See Gov Code § 65998(a) ) 19 93 Consistent with SB 50 the City has designated new schoolsites at 20 MCAS- Tustin for TUSD IUSD and SOCCCD in order to mitigate the student generation 21 impacts the Reuse Plan will have on those districts 94 The fact that SB 50 does not, and was not intended to preclude the City 23 from designating new school sites at MCAS- Tustin for the Districts to mitigate student 24 generation impacts was reinforced and made abundantly clear by the recent adoption of AB 25 212 26 95 Section 3 of AB 212 expressly provides that, ilver alia 27 28 RSCCD /MCAS /4rnd -writ Doc 21 First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate "The Le stature finds and declares that the y of fustm has taken the position that current state law prohibits the city from designating new schoolsites for the Santa Ana Unified School z District and the Rancho Santiago Community College District as conditions of approval for the development of new land uses at the 3 Marine Corps Air Station- Tustin the Legislature further finds and declares that it is necessary to adopt this special legislation in 4 order to (a) remove any perceived impediments to providing land for adequate schoolsttes for those districts under the unique 5 circumstances presented by the Reuse Plan for the Marine Corps Air Station - Tustin and (b) reaffirm the fact that the development 6 of any new land uses at the Marine Corps Air Station Tustin shall be and remain subject to the land use regulations of this state " 96 in requiring that the City condition its grant or issuance of any land use approval for land at MCAS Tustin which the City intends to or does acquire, on the conveyance or dedication of land at MCAS 1 ustm to the Districts to mitigate the unpacts of the Reuse Plan on the Districts. AB 212 states that its provisions apply "[Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including Chapter 4 9 (commencing with Section 65995) [SB 501, which the Legislature hereby finds and declares shall not relieve the City of Tustin or the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency of their duties under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code [CEQA] to fully mitigate all adverse environmental effects associated with the buildout of the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin by designating adequate schoolsites at the former base to alleviate impacts on the Santa Ana Unified School District and the Rancho Santiago Community College District (Govt Code §65051 5 ) 97 Although AB 212 did not go into effect until January 1, 2002- i e , after the City's adoption of GPA 00 001 on January 16, 2001 it applies retroactively to all land use approvals reining to MCAS - Tustin which the City granted or issued on or after January 1 2001 (Govt Code §65051 5, Health & Saf Code § 33492 114 ) 98 Accordingly, given that the FEIS /FEIR does not even attempt to consider the possibility of designating new school sites at MCAS Tustin tor the Districts to mitigate student generation impacts the FEIS /FEIR violates CEQA and the CFQA Guidelines, including but not limited to section 15126 4 of the Guidelines. and AB 212 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22 RSCCD /MCAS /Amd Writ Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • 1 E. The FEIS /FEIR Fails To Describe All Feasible Mitigation Measures 2 To Minimize The Impacts Upon SAUSD And RSCCD, And Related 3 Significant Physical Impacts To The Environment 4 99 There are five educational districts whose boundaries cover portions of s MCAS Tustin, i e SAUSD RSCCD the Irvine Unified School District (` IUSD ") the Tustin 6 Unified School District (` TUSD "), and the South Orange County Community College District 7 ( "SOCCCD') Approximately 122 acres of MCAS - Tustin fall within SAUSD s boundaries 8 100 As noted above the FEIS /FEIR avoids having to identify substantial physical impacts to the environment by simply noting that there is no facility design or location that could be evaluated in this EIS /EIR. 101 It is indeed ironic that the FEIS /FEIR purportedly cannot identify any new site for additional facilities for SAUSD but had no difficulty identifying sites for TUSD and IUSD upon which to build facilities to mitigate the student generation effects of the Reuse Plan 9 10 11 12 13 14 Is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 25 26 27 78 102 Specifically the FEIS /FEIR acknowledges that the Reuse Plan would add 302 new students to the IUSD In mitigation of that impact, the City will transfer a 20 -acre school site within the Property for IUSD 103 In a similar manner the FEIS /FEIR estimates that the Reuse Plan would generate 1 143 new students for TUSD In mitigation, the City will provide TUSD two 10- acre elementary school sites, and a 40 -acre high school site within the Property 104 While acknowledging that the Reuse Plan could generate up to 509 new students for SAUSD (817 using proper math), the City has proposed to provide no land to SAUSD Given that SAUSD encompasses 122 acres of the total 1,606 acres of mostly undeveloped land being given- for free - -to the City one would expect the FEIS /FEIR to provide some logical explanation as to why the impacts caused by the Reuse Plan on SAUSD could not be mitigated by providing land. None however is provided 105 Indeed, the FEIS /FEIR fails to satisfactorily explain why the City felt the need to transfer a 20 -acre school site to IUSD to mitigate the effects of adding 302 new 23 RSCCD /MC.AS /And -\Vat Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • 1 students to IUSD but apparently saw no need to provide land to SAUSD to accommodate the 2 purported 509 new students the Reuse Plan would add to SAUSD 3 106 Ironically the FEIS /FEIR acknowledges three new schools to be built on a the 60 acres provided to TUSD will exceed that needed to fully mitigate the effects of the Reuse Plan, and will thus accommodate some of the future growth anticipated for the Tustin community as a whole Some explanation should have been provided in the FEIS /FEIR as to 7 why the needs of the 24 000 students currently shoehorned into portable classrooms within x SAUSD could not be similarly accommodated (there are now more students attending classes 9 in portables at schools in the SAUSD than the total number of students enrolled at all schools to in the IUSD (23 392) and well over 1 -1/2 times the total number of students attending all 11 schools in the TUSD (16 192)) 12 107 Moreover the FEIS /FEIR s statement that it cannot address 13 environmental impacts because no site for additional facility construction relating to SAUSD 14 has been identified is disingenuous Prior to the City being named as LRA for MCAS Tustin, 1s the United States Department of Education previously set aside 75 acres within MCAS- Tustin 16 to alleviate present and future overcrowding within SAUSD Declaring the Department of 17 Education s approval null and void, however the City took away SAUSD s 75 acres of land 18 within MCAS - Tustin, and now plans to sell the site to private developers for 19 commercial /business use 20 108 As noted above the FEIS /FEIR completely fails to adequately address 21 student generation impacts to the seriously overcrowded RSCCD facilities and the associated 22 physical environment impacts resulting therefrom. 23 109 Again, although the FEIS /FEIR has no trouble identifying 100 acres of 24 land to give to SOCCCD it provides no land at all for RSCCD which also lies partially 25 within MCAS- Tustin 26 110 In a stroke of pure irony SOCCCD has apparently now determined that it L7 does not need the 100 -acre site to build additional undergraduate facilities As discussed 28 below SOCCCD has announced its intention to use the 100 -acre `Learning Village for uses 24 RSCCD/AICAS /Amd - \Vnt Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • I other than to provide traditional community college undergraduate programs. Moreover 2 officials of SOCCCD have admitted that if they cannot obtain land at MCAS- Tustin as part of 3 the Reuse Plan, SOCCCD can simply move its proposed project to another location at one of a its two other campuses. s 111 This of course confirms that SOCCCD does not need any additional 6 land at NICAS-Tustin because it has a substantial amount of unused land at its two other 7 campuses s 112 Accordingly under the Reuse Plan, both RSCCD and SOCCCD get what 9 they don t need RSC( D gets 2,200 new students in its overcrowded schools, and SOCCCD n gets 100 more acres added to its surplus land holdings. t t 113 Because the FFIS /FEIR fails to adequately describe all feasible 12 mitigation measures to minimize the significant student generation and related physical Is environment impacts resulting from student generation on SAUSD and RSCCD under the 14 Reuse Plan, it violates CEQA and the CFQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to section 15 15126 4 of the Guidelines 16 114 Similarly because the Mitigation Monitoring Program the City proposes 17 to adopt in connection with the Reuse Plan also fails to incorporate adequate mitigation 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 measures it violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to section 150Q7 of the Guidelines. F The FE1S /FEIR Fails To Discuss Any Project Alternatives Which Would Lessen Or Avoid The Significant Impacts Upon SAUSD And RSCCD, And Associated Environmental Impacts. 115 Section 15126 6 of the CEQA Guidelines provides, in relevant part. An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives 25 RSCCD /MCAS /Amd -Writ Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • 116 In purporting to comply with section 15126 6 the FEIS /FEIR sets forth z two alternative plans in addition to the Reuse Plan. 3 117 Despite the indisputably overcrowded conditions currently existing 4 within SAUSD or RSCCD and that the redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin will create student 5 generation impacts none of the other alternatives explored in the FEIS /FEIR considers 6 adding an new school sites for either of these two Districts 7 118 As noted above prior to the City s designation as LRA the Department 8 of Education had designated 75 of the 122 acres of MCAS - Tustin falling within SAUSD 9 boundaries for the development of new school facilities. 10 119 Each of the development alternatives, however designate all of the 122 11 acres within SAUSD s boundaries as either commercial commercial business or iz commercial recreation Nowhere in the FEIS /FEIR is the possibility even mentioned that 13 some of thc land within or adjacent to SAUSD s boundaries be used for thc construction of 14 school facilities. Similarly the alternatives set forth in the FEIS /FEIR never consider 15 providing land to RSCCD for the purpose of additional educational facilities 16 120 i3ecause the FEIS /FEIR fails to analyze any project alternatives which 17 would lessen or avoid the significant impacts upon SAUSD and RSCCD and associated 18 environmental impacts it violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not 19 limited to section 15126 6 of the Guidelines 2p 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G The Findings Of Fact And Statement Of Overriding Considerations Are Legally Inadequate 121 Before an EIR is certified and a project is approved, CEQA section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091 require a public agency to make certain findings regarding each environmental impact associated with the project, and CEQA section 21081 5 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(b) require that all such findings must be based upon substantial evidence in the record 122 Specifically CEQA and the Guidelines required the City inter alia to make one of two findings for each significant environmental impact identified in the 26 RSCCD /N1CAS /Amd- Writ _Doc First Amended Petition for \Vrit of Mandate • • FEIS /FEIR to provide an explanation of the rationale for each finding they made The two 2 possible findings which the City could have made for each significant impact were that (a) the 3 mitigation treasures or project alternatives identified in the FEIS /FEIR would reduce the 4 impact to a level of insignificance or (b) the impact is unavoidable because one or more 5 specific economic, social or other considerations make Infeasible the mitigation measures or 6 project alternatives which are identified in the FEIS /FEIR as relating to the impact in 7 question CEQA and the Guidelines required the City to make this later finding for each 5 mitigation measure and project alternative that was identified by the FE1S /FEIR but was not 9 adopted by the City 10 123 In addition section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the 1 body determining whether to approve the project which is the subject of CEQA review must 12 balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. If 3 the decision- making hods determines that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the 14 unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the body approving the project must state in 15 writing the specific reasons to support its approval of the project based on the final EiR 16 and /or other information in the record Such writing, called a statement of overriding 17 considerations, is to be included in the record of the project approval is 124 As set forth at length above the FEIS /FSIR fails to properly identify and 19 address the significant environmental impacts, reasonable project alternatives, and feasible 20 mitigation measures relating to the Reuse flan. Given this failure the City s Findings of 21 Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations- which are designed to incorporate the 22 City s assessment of these issues - are both legally inadequate Accordingly the City failed 23 to proceed in the manner required by law and violated CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, 24 including, but not limited to sections 15091 15092, and 15093 of the Guidelines 25 1-1 New Information Regarding SOCCCD's Use Of The Learning Center 26 Requires A Subsequent EIR Or Supplement To The FEIR 27 125 A subsequent EIR is required by CEQA section 21166 and Guidelines 5 section 15162 whenever certain changes occur with respect to the design of a proposed 27 RS( CD /NC_ASiAmd -Wot roe First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • t project the circumstances under which such project will be undertaken, or the information 2 regarding its environmental impacts Under section 15162 of the Guidelines, a supplement to 3 an EiR ('Supplement ) may in certain circumstances be used in place of a subsequent EiR 126 At the time the FE1S /FEiR was prepared, the City had been provided 5 with no plans regarding how SOCCCD would utilize the 100 -acre Learning Center site Since 6 the preparation of the FEIS /FEIR however significant new information has come to light 7 regarding this subject. s 127 Specifically SOCCCD has announced that it intends to develop a project 9 on the site identified as the Digital Innovation Center for the Arts Science and Technology" n ( Di -C AST .1 to teach students in such high -tech areas as animation laser optics and virtual t reality lio3,ever the classes to be provided by SOCCCD will he directed toward older 12 students who need certification training to advance in their lobs or change professions. in 13 other instances, SOCC CD will contract to teach classes for private companies SOCCCD 11 expects most of the classes it offers as part of its Dl -CAST project to be short, immersion- 15 style offerings, perhaps taught in five week cycles mostly at night or on weekends. 128 The significance of this information is twofold First, although the r ( it s Reuse Plan for MC AS- Tustin will be generating upwards to 2,200 new full -time 18 community college students for RSCCD the programs to be offered by SOCCCD will not be 19 geared to address the needs of such students That, of course will leave RSCCD with the 20 burden of accommodating these new students in its already- overcrowded system with no new 2t land or facilities being provided at MCAS- Tustin As discussed above, these impacts and 22 appropriate mitigation measures need to be addressed in a Subsequent EIR or Supplement. 23 129 Second, in addition to the classroom facilities to he constructed, 24 SOCCCD has announced that it will be building a 1 000 room dormitory on the site The L5 addition of 1 000 more full time, albeit temporary residents will create numerous 26 environmental impacts, including traffic circulation impacts well beyond that contemplated 27 in the FEIS /FEIR 28 28 RSCCD4hICAS /4md -Wnt Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 11 12 i7 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 75 26 27 28 • • 130 Accordingly the FEIS /FEIR violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines including, hut not limited to section 15162 of the Guidelines in that it fails to take into account SOCCCD s proposed use of the Learning Center site and has not been supplemented or replaced with a subsequent EIR. 131 As a result of the City s failure to comply with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines in approving the FEIS /FEIR. Petitioners are entitled to a peremptory writ of mandate which, inter cilia directs the City to vacate and set aside its certification of the FEiS /FEiR and approvals of GPA 00 -001 including, but not limited to Resolution No 00 -90 and Resolution No 00 -91 1 32 En addition Petitioners are entitled to ancillary injunctive relief in support of this cause of action, including, without limitation, the issuance of a temporary restraining order preliminary injunction and permanent injunction, as necessary to preserve and protect Petitioners rights herein. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ( Against The City And Real Parties For A Writ Of Mandate And Injunctive Relief Based On Violations Of Government Code § 65580 Et Set! (Invalid Housing Element)) A The City Failed To Comply With Government Code Sections 65588(e)(1) and 65585(f) In Approving GPA 00 -001 And Housing Element Therein. 133 Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 132 inclusive, as set forth above 1 34 One of the key purposes of Housing Element law is to require counties and cities to recognize and fulfill their responsibilities to make decent housing available to all residents, including low income persons 135 Petitioners have a strong interest in ensuring that affordable housing is made available in the Cit) As set forth above SAUSD and RSCCD administer educational 29 RS( CD /h1CAS,Amd -Writ Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • facilities which are severely overcrowded, and which are expected to become even more 2 overcrowded over the next decade or more One of the chief reasons for this overcrowding is the lack of affordable housing in other parts of Orange County 136 Given that the Reuse Plan is projected to generate up to 77 400 jobs including many low to moderate income jobs it is critical that the 1- lousing Element 6 adequately detail how the (_ ity intends to meet the housing needs of the workers who will fill 7 those jobs and others of low to moderate income If the City fails to provide for sufficient 8 low to moderate income housing in connection with (iPA 00 -001 the geographic areas served 9 by S Al iSD and RSCCD will only face further overcrowding ut 137 Longacre similarly has a strong interest rn ensuring the development of I t affordable housing within the City Without an adequate supply of affordable housing, low to 12 moderate income workers are forced to commute both into and through the City causing iz traffic noise and air pollution impacts Again, given the large number of jobs to be 14 generated within the Reuse Plan area, adequate provision for affordable housing is crucial is 138 Pursuant to Government Code section 65588 each local government is 16 required to revise the Housing Element of its General Plan every five years, which must be 17 sent to California s Department of Housing and Community Development ( HCD ") for 18 review and approval Under section 65588(e)(1), the time within which the City was required io to review and revise its preexisting Housing Element (the Old Element') expired on 20 December 31 2000 21 139 In October of 2000 the City provided a new Housing Element intended 22 to satisfy section 65588 to HCD for approval (the `New Element ) On November 16 2000 23 HCD denied approval of the New Element. citing a large number of inadequacies. A true and 24 correct copy of the letter received from 1-ICD with attached Appendix setting forth the 25 inadequacies of the New Element (the `HCD Analysis ) is attached hereto as Exhibit "1 26 fo date the C it) has not revised and resubmitted the New Element to HCD L7 140 i- Paving failed to obtain HCD approval of the New Element, the City was 28 thus limited to two courses of action under Government code section 65585(f) The City 30 RSC( D /t`1e',1S7Amd -Writ Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • could (a) wait to adopt GPA 00 -001 until after it had revised the New Element and obtained 2 HCD approval or (b) adopt the New Element without changes, making specific written 3 findings as to why it believed that the New Element complies with the Government Code 4 requirements despite HCD s findings to the contrary 5 141 The City however did neither Disregarding HCD s rejection of the 6 New Element. the ( ity incorporated an earlier amendment to the Old Element (the Amended 7 Element ') into GPA 00 -001 Although this Amended Element had been previously approved 8 by 11CD in February of 2000 as a valid amendment to the Old Element, 1-ICD now considers 9 the Amended Element invalid because the Old Element had expired under section m 65588(0(1) and the New Element had been rejected 142 Because the City failed to comply with the clear requirements of 12 Govermnent Code sections 65588(e)(1) and 655850). GPA 00 -001 adopted by the City on 13 January 16 2001 is invalid 14 13. The Amended Element Fails To Comply With Government Code Sections 65583 and 65584 16 n is 19 20 21 23 24 145 In addition to the deficiencies identified in the 14CD ,Analysis, a review 25 of the Amended Element as a whole reveals that much of the information contained therein is 26 seriously outdated and fails to take into account the growth and development of the City L7 occurring in recent `ears Indeed much of the Amended Element discusses future goals for 25 the 1989 1994 planning period 143 In addition to the code violations associated with its adoption, the Amended Element is substantively deficient in that it fails to provide the information and level of specificity required under Government Code sections 65583 and 65584 144 The deficiencies identified in the HCD Analysis of the New Element, along with the citations to the supporting Government Code sections, apply with even greater force when applied to the dramatically less complete information found in the Amended Element. Petitioners hereby incorporate the HCD Analysis in this First Amended, as if set forth in full 31 RSCCD /MCAS /Amd -wni Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • 146 In addition, the census data relied upon in the Amended Element is so outdated as to be virtually useless in future planning, particularly in Tight of the vastly more recent data contained in the New Klement. 147 As a result of the City s failure to comply with the requirements of the Government Code in adopting the Amended Element as part of GPA 00 -001 and the inadequacy of the Amended Element itself Petitioners are entitled to a peremptory writ of mandate which, inter cilia directs the City to vacate and set aside its approval of GPA 00- 001 including, but not limited to Resolution No 00 -91 148 In addition. Petitioners are entitled to ancillary injunctive relief in support of this cause of action including, without limitation, the issuance of a temporary restraining order preliminary injunction and permanent injunction as necessary to preserve and protect Petitioners rights herein Tl11RU CAUSE OF ACTION (Against The City And Real Parties For A Writ Of Mandate And Injunctive Relief Based On Violations Of ( overnmenl Code § 65051 5 And Health & Safety Code § 33492.114) 149 Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs I through 148 inclusive, as set forth above 150 In granting land use approvals to allow for the development of commercial residential or other land uses on all or any portion of MCAS- Tustin, the City is required under Ala 212 to condition those approvals in such a manner as to provide for the timely conveyance or irrevocable offer to dedicate to the Districts for purposes of constructing or operating a K 14 educational facility (a) fee title to a 100 -acre parcel of contiguous land situated within that portion of I\4C AS- Tustin that falls within the Districts current attendance boundaries or (b) fee title to other property at MCAS- Tustin that the Districts agree in writing to accept provided that this other property does not include any of the parcels designated under the Reuse Plan for conveyance to certain public agencies and nonprofit organizations (Govt Code §650S1 5 Health & Saf Code §33492 114 ) 32 RSCCD /MCAS /Arad -Writ Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • 151 According to the express language of A13 212 any land use or other 2 approvals granted or issued by the City that do not comply with Al3 212 shall be Invalid and 3 of no force or effect and are subject to being vacated and set aside by writ of mandate a 152 The City s adoption of (iPA 00 -001 to serve as the master land use plan 5 to implement the Reuse Plan for the base was the first land use approval issued by the City to 6 authorize the large scale development of commercial residential and other land uses as 7 1\9CAS- Tustin 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 granted or issued by [the City] on or after January 1 2001 (Govt Code §65051 5 Health & 19 Saf Code §33492 114 ) 20 155 The City Council s approval of GPA 00 -001 was not issued in 21 compliance with AB 212 i e the City adopted (il'A 00 -001 without imposing the conditions 22 of approval and mitigation measures necessary to provide for the certain parcels of land at 23 !ACAS Tustin to be timely conveyed to the Districts after the City acquired title thereto 24 Accordingly the City s approval of (iP \ 00 -001 must he vacated and set aside on the 25 grounds that it violates the dictates of AB 212 and is invalid. 26 156 The City however has failed to take any action to vacate and set aside 27 its approval of GPA 00 -001 or to otherwise amend or modify that approval to impose the 28 conditions of approval required by AB 212 'fo the contrary, since AB 212 was signed by the 151 The City has applied to the Navy to acquire title to over 1,200 acres of land at MCAS- Tustin 1 c over 75% of the surplus land available for distribution at the base If and when it acquires that land, which primarily consists parcels designated for of commercial and residential uses, the City plans to auction those parcels off to private real estate developers so that they can proceed to develop the base in accordance with the piaster land use plan authorized by GPA 00 -001 154 Although (iPA 00 -001 was finally adopted by the City Council on January 16 2001 i e prior to AB 212 s effective date of January 1 2002 it is nonetheless subject to A13 212 because the statute expressly provides that it shall apply retroactively to all land use or other approvals relating to the Marine Corps Air Station- Tustin that are RSCCD /NICAS/Amd -Writ Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • Governor in July 2001 the City has steadfastly maintained that AB 212 is invalid and unconstitutional 157 For example City officials have stated in the press that `the City will file its own lawsuit to have [AB 212] negated as unconstitutional and that the City "will turn to the courts to fight the legislation. (Orange Carnal, Register July 12. 2001 `Base Bill Approved By Senate (range Count% Register August 2. 2001 'State Joins Battle Over Helicopter Base Governor Signs Bill Barring Tustin From Developing Former Base Until 100 Acres Are Turned Over To Schools ) 158 Not only has the City repeatedly insisted in public statements in the press that AB 212 is unconstitutional and unenforceable but It has also expressly stated, both orally and in writing, in recent proceedings conducted by the United Stated District Court in that certain civil rights action entitled Santa Ana (51i /ied School District et al v ( ill of Tustin, et al (U S District Court Case No 01 -3426 WJR (C Tx)) [hereinafter referred to as the `Federal Court Action ] that AB 212 is unconstitutional and the City intends to challenge its validity in Court 159 Indeed, in motion papers recently filed in the Federal Court Action, the City has stated that it `believes that AB 212 is invalid, and intends to file an action seeking to invalidate the statute ( Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative to Stay at p 2. lines 3 5 ) 160 Given the (_ s unwavering. albeit unjustified position that AB 212 is unconstitutional and of no legal effect it would have been futile for Petitioners, prior to bringing this claim, to have formally requested the ('itv to vacate and set aside GPA 00 -001 on the grounds that it violates AB 212 and is invalid. 161 As a result of the City s failure to vacate and set aside GPA 00 -001, Petitioners are entitled to a peremptory writ of mandate which inter alia directs the City to vacate and set aside its approval of GP \ 00 -001 including, but not limited to Resolution No 00 -91 34 RSCCD /M(.AS /Amd -writ Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate • • 162 In addition, Petitioners are entitled to ancillary injunctive relief in support of this cause of action, including, without limitation, the issuance of a temporary restraining order preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction, as necessary to preserve and protect Petitioners rights herein WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for relief as follows ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 1 For a peremptory writ of mandate. and for ancillary injunctive relief including, without limitation, the issuance of a temporary restraining order preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction, as prayed for hereinabove 2 For Petitioners attorneys fees pursuant to inter alia ( ode of Civil Procedure section 1021 5 and Government ( ode section 800• 3 For Petitioners cost of suit and 4 For such other and further relief as the ( ourt may deem just and proper DATED January 16 2002 EDMOND M CONNOR ( RAIG I GRIFFIN CONNOR BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP B' Edmond M Connor \ttorneti s For Petitioners Santa Ana Unified School District, Rancho Santiago Community College District. and Marisela Longacre 15 RSCCD /MCAS /4md -Wnt Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate PROOF SERVICE BY FIRST CLASAIL I am employed with Connor Blake & Griffin LLP whose address is 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1450 Irvine California 92612 1 am not a party to the cause; I any over the age of eighteen years and I am readily familiar with the practice of C onnor Blake & Griffin LLP for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and know that in the ordinary course of the business practice of Connor Blake & Griffin LLP the document described below will be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same date that it is placed at Connor Blake & Griffin LLP with postage thereon hilly prepaid for collection and nailing 1 further declare that on the date hereof 1 served a copy of the following documents FIRST &MENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE on the following by placing a tnie copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows for collection and mailing via first class mail at Connor Blake & Griffin LLP 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1450 Irvine, California 92612 in accordance with the ordinary business practices of Connor Blake & Griffin LLP Daniel K. Spradhn, Esq Craig Ci Farrington, Esq Woodruff Spradhn & Smart 701 5 Parker Street, Ste 7000 Orange, CA 92868 Attorneys for Defendants C ity of Tustin. et al 1 declare under penalty of perjure under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on January 17 2002, aft ine, Califon ia. udy Rutter l •NNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFINOP ATTORNEYS AT LAW EDMOND M. CONNOR LAURA LEE BLAKE CRAIG 1, GRIFFIN »ATTD J. HESSELTINE MATTHEW J. FLETCHER Mr Dana Ogdon Senior Project Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 2600 MICHELSON DRIVE SUITE 1450 IRVINE CALIFORNIA 92612 TELEPHONE (949) 622 -2600 IELEFACSINIILE (949) 622 2626 E -MAIL econnoninbusincsslit corn January 16, 2001 VIA HAND DELIVERY Re: Additional Objections to Adequacy of FEIS/FEIR for General Plan Amendment 00 -001 Re Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station — Tustin, California Dear Mr Ogdon: In connection with the public hearing to be held on January 16, 2001 by the City Council for the City of Tustin (the `City ") regarding General Plan Amendment 00 -001 (the `Project ") and the "Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report' (hereinafter, the 'FEIS /FEIR') for the disposal and reuse of the Marine Air Corps Air Station at Tustin, California ( "MCAS- Tustin'), we submit this letter on behalf of our clients the Santa Ana Unified School District (the `SAUSD "), the Rancho Santiago Community College District (the `RSCCD "), Victor and Susan Garcia (the ` Garcias'), Fortino and Bertha Rivera (the "Riveras'), and Karina Valenzuela [hereinafter, the SAUSD and the RSCCD shall collectively be referred to as the `Districts and the Districts, the Garcias, the Riveras, and Ms. Valenzuela shall collectively he referred to as the `Concerned Parties']. The Concerned Parties hereby object to the FEIS/FEIR and the Project on the basis of each and every procedural and substantive contention, objection, comment, or argument raised in the following letters, as well as all other letters submitted to the City in connection with the FEIS /FEIR or the Project: (a) the November 28, 2000 letter from Edmond M. Connor Esq. Connor Blake & Griffin LLP to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager City of Tustin, regarding the FEIS /FEIR and the Project; (b) the December 18 2000 letter from M. Andriette Culbertson, President, Culbertson, Adams & Associates, to the City Council, City of Tustin, which was prepared at the request of our office; RSCCD \MCAS- LandTmsfr \Ogdon3. Doc • CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLE. Dana Ogdon January 16, 2001 Page 2 (c) the January 16, 2001 letter from Dwight E. Berg, P.E. Public Economics, Inc. ( "PEI "), to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager City of Tustin, which is attached as Exhibit A" hereto; (d) the January 16, 2001 letter from Colette Marie McLaughlin, Planner for SAUSD to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager City of Tustin, which is attached as Exhibit `B' hereto- (e) the January 16, 2001 letter from Dante Gumucio of PEI to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager City of Tustin, which is attached as Exhibit `C" hereto, and (1) the January 16, 2001 letter from Julie Slark, Executive Director of Research Planning and Development, Rancho Santiago Community College District, to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager City of Tustin, which is attached as Exhibit D' hereto. Each of the above- listed letters is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full hereat. In addition, the Concerned Parties also object to the FEIS /FEIR and the Project on the basis of each of the objections raised, or comments or arguments made, by the Concerned Parties, their representatives, or any other Project opponent at any public hearing or meeting conducted by the City in connection with the l'roject or the FEIS /FEIR, including, but not limited to, the public hearing conducted by the City s Planning Commission on November 28, 2000 The Agenda Report for the January 16, 2001 hearing on GPA 00 -001 sets forth comments in response to some of the points which I raised in my letter to you of November 28, 2000 In those comments, staff repeatedly makes reference to the student generation estimates set forth in a July 1996 report by SAUSD's consultant, PEI. In his attached letter to you (Exhibit A hereto), Mr Berg of PEI takes issue with the City's attempt to compare the estimates set forth in PEI's July 1996 report to the worst case" projections for student generation impacts which were set forth in the FEIS /FEIR. In addition, Mr Berg points out in his letter that the FEIS /FEIR s projected range of 82 to 509 additional students to be generated for the SAUSD school system as a result of the redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin is not credible because it is based on unreasonable assumptions which have materially skewed the results. By incorporating more reasonable assumptions into the same methodologies used by the City s consultants in arriving at its student generation estimates, PEI has generated a new range of estimates to better define the number of RSCCD\PMCAS- Iandrrnsfr\Ogdon3 Doc *CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP• Dana Ogdon January 16, 2001 Page 3 students that will potentially be added to SAUSD's schools when the City's Reuse Plan is implemented. The calculations performed by PEI - -based on the methodologies employed by the City s consultants- -show that the FEIS /FEIR has seriously underestimated the student generation impacts associated with the build -out of the City s Reuse Plan. When these new calculations are considered in light of (1) the CEQA compliance analysis set forth in Ms. Culbertson s letter to the City Council, dated December 18, 2000 and (2) the additional facts set forth in the materials attached as Exhibits A through "E" hereto, it is clear that the FEIS /FEIR violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and must be corrected and recirculated for public review and comment before the City takes any action on GPA 00 -001 On this basis, therefore, the Concerned Parties hereby request that the City continue the City Council hearing on GPA 00 -001 until all of the CEQA compliance issues raised on behalf of the Concerned Parties have been properly addressed and resolved. In particular the concerned Parties request that the City defer taking any action to certify the FEIS /FEIR for GPA 00 -001 until the misstatements of law set forth in Attachment 6 to the January 16 2001 Agenda Report are corrected and the FEIS /FEIR is amended accordingly to add appropriate mitigation measures to minimize the Project s impacts on public services and facilities within the Districts. Specifically the City should acknowledge that the following contentions are disingenuous and incorrect when applied to the City s Reuse Ilan for the redevelopment of surplus federal land at MCAS- Tustin. `Except for paying school impact fees (that will be required as part of the project) a new development is not required to build or provide sites for new schools Finally since Goleta and El Dorado were decided, the obligation of a development project to mitigate impacts on schools has been completely revised. The State is now responsible under SB 50 for financing new schools and mitigating the impacts of land use approvals (sec California Government Code Section 65995(c)). Even if mitigation was warranted, State law prohibits conditioning projects to require that land be provided for schools (Cal. Gov t. Code Section 65995)." (Agenda Report, pp. 3 -4 ) In the first place, SB 50 has no application whatsoever to the obligations of the U.S. Department of the Navy (the `DON ") under NEPA and the Environmental Justice Order to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are adopted to minimize the adverse environmental effects associated with the disposal and reuse of surplus federal land at MCAS- Tustin, particularly impacts on minority populations. Since the FEIS /FEIR is intended to be an environmental compliance document that will jointly be RSCCD\AMCAS- LandTmsrr \Dgdon3 Doc CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLO Dana Ogdon January 16, 2001 Page 4 utilized by the DON and the City in issuing approvals relating to the City s Reuse Plan for MCAS - Tustin, it is imperative that the FEIS /FEIR be revised and recirculated to acknowledge the significant impacts which the Project will have on public services and facilities within the Districts and to provide for appropriate mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate these impacts. The City cannot attempt to unilaterally exonerate the DON from complying with the requirements of NEPA and the Environmental Justice Order by simply invoking the provisions of SB 50 More importantly however SB 50 provides no escape route for the City to avoid its obligations under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines to mitigate the adverse impacts the Project will have on public services and facilities within the Districts. Indeed, SB 50 was never intended to apply to the federal base closure and reuse process relating to MCAS- Tustin. Under that process, the City as the Local Redevelopment Agency ("ERA ') is required to prepare a Reuse Plan for the redevelopment of the surplus federal land that is to be conveyed by the United States in closing the military installation in question. The City s proposed approval of GPA 00 -001 in support of its Reuse Plan for MCAS- Tustin does not involve the imposition of the type of conditions or exactions on real estate developers which are proscribed by 513 50 The preparation and approval of a Reuse Plan for a military base is an activity which is expressly subject to CEQA (see sections 21083 8 and 21083 8 1) and there is no basis for asserting that the State Legislature intended that S13 50 could be used by LRAs, such as the City to circumvent the requirements of CEQA. In fact, SB 50 expressly states that it shall not be interpreted `to limit or prohibit the authority of a local agency to reserve or designate real property for a schoolsite. (Cee, Gov Code, § 65998(a).) Not surprisingly, the City s Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin does, indeed, designate (1) 80 acres of land for schoolsites for the Tustin Unified School District and the Irvine Unified School District and (2) 100 acres of land for a `Learning Village site for the South Orange County Community College District ( "SOCCCD "). However, no land for schoolsites for either of the Districts is provided under the Reuse Plan and both the letter and the spirit of NEPA and CEQA as well as SB 50- would require such sites to be designated as appropriate mitigation for the impacts that will be generated by the City s Reuse Plan for the redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin. Turning to another subject, the Concerned Parties strongly disagree with staffs assertion in the Agenda Report that there is no feasible way' to evaluate the student generation impacts on RSCCD that will be created by build -out of the City s Reuse Plan for MCAS - Tustin. Obviously the community college facilities and programs RSCCDU1CAS- LandTrnsfr \Dgdon3 Doc CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP• Dana Ogdon January 16 2001 Page 5 provided by RSCCD qualify as public services within the meaning of section 15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines and, as such, any significant impacts to these services must be addressed and mitigated in the FEIS /FEIR. Regrettably, the FEIS /FEIR fails to even mention RSCCD in discussing impacts on public services and facilities and, in the Agenda Report, staff attempts to justify this glaring omission by offering the explanation that its EIR consultant has no prior experience in projecting indirect impacts on a community college district. In the attached letter from Ms. Julie Slark, the Executive Director of Research, Planning, and Development for RSCCD Ms. Stark points out that, by simply modifying the methodologies employed by the City s consultants in the FEIS /FEIR, it is possible to make a reasonable estimate as to the range of additional full -time students that will be added to the RSCCD system as a result of the redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin. The point to be made here is that, if Ms. Stark can perform these calculations, the City s consultant can certainly do likewise- -and should have done so in analyzing the environmental Impacts of the City s Reuse Plan. To underscore this point, PEI was asked to perform such an analysis on behalf of RSCCD and the results of that analysis are set forth in the letter from Mr Gumucio to Mr Ogdon which is attached as Exhibit `C" hereto. Clearly, the provisions of SB 50 do not apply to community college districts and thus the FEIS/FEIR not only fails to address the impacts of the Project on the public services and facilities within RSCCD but also fails to provide any mitigation measures to address these impacts. Merely alluding to the Reuse Plan's designation of the `Learning Village parcel for SOCCCD does not constitute adequate compliance with CEQA. We believe that calculations supplied by Mr Gumucio and Ms. Stark demonstrate that the build -out of the City s Reuse Plan will have significant impacts on RSCCD's already- overcrowded facilities. These impacts should have been disclosed and analyzed in the FEIS/FEIR and appropriate mitigation measures should have been discussed to minimize or avoid such impacts. The failure of the FEIS/FEIR to contain any discussion whatsoever regarding student generation impacts on RSCCD renders that document legally defective and requires it to be supplemented and recirculated for public review and comment. In the light of the startling revelations regarding SOCCCD's plans to develop a portion of the 'Learning Village" parcel which were disclosed in an article which appeared two weeks ago in the Los Angeles Times (.see Exhibit `E, hereto), it is now clear that significant new information has surfaced regarding the City s Reuse Plan which requires the FEIS/FEIR to be revised and recirculated to address the Project s RSCCDVsICAS- LandTrnsfr\Ogdon3 Doc 'CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP• Dana Ogdon January 16 2001 Page 6 impacts on community college district services and facilities. According to the attached article, if SOCCCD obtains land at MCAS - Tustin, it intends to develop a project known as the 'Digital Innovation Center for the Arts, Science, and Technology ( "DI- CAST') to teach students in such high -tech areas as animation, laser optics and virtual reality However the classes to be provided by SOCCCD will be directed toward older students who need certification training to advance in their jobs or change professions. In other instances, SOCCCD will contract to teach classes for companies. SOCCCD expects most of the classes it offers as part of its DI -CAST project to be short, immersion -style offerings, perhaps taught in five week cycles, mostly at night or on weekends. What this means, therefore, is that, although the City s Reuse Plan for MCAS - Tustin will be generating upwards to 3,000 new full -time commumly college students for RSCCD the programs to be offered by SOCCCD will not be geared to address the needs of such students. That, of course, will leave RSCCD with the burden of accommodating these new students in its already- overcrowded system with no new land or facilities being provided at MCAS- Tustin. Obviously these impacts need to be addressed and appropriate mitigation measures need to be discussed in the FEIS /FEIR. In revising the FEIS/FEIR to incorporate a discussion of such impacts and mitigation measures as they relate to RSCCD the City should he mindful that, as reported in the attached LA Times article, officials of SOCCCD have now admitted publicly that, if that district does not obtain land at MCAS- Tustin as part of the City s Reuse Plan, SOCCCD can simply move its 'DI- CAST" project to another location at one of its two other campuses. This candid admission confirms what the Districts have long suspected, i.e. that SOCCCD does not need any additional land at MCAS - Tustin because it has a substantial amount of unused land at its two other campuses. Accordingly since the Districts desperately need surplus at MCAS- Tustin to build new school facilities, a balancing of the equities would certainly favor - indeed it would mandate- -that the City s Reuse Plan and FEIS /FEIR be amended to provide that the entire 'Learning Village parcel be conveyed to the Districts. As a final note, in Attachment 6 to the Agenda Report for the January 16, 2001 public hearing, staff refers to a purported offer to provide SAUSD with 10 acres of land at MCAS- Tustin and $3.5 million in up -front tier level 1 school impact development fees. What is unclear is whether the City intends its reference to this so- called offer to constitute mitigation for the adverse impacts which the Project will have on SAUSD If that is the City s intention, then such mitigation must properly he addressed in the FEIS /FEIR and in the City s Mitigation Monitoring Report relating thereto. As the City is well aware, of course, its belated offer" is woefully inadequate in RSCCD\MCAS- LandTrnsfr \Ogdon3 Doc •CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP• Dana Ogdon January 16, 2001 Page 7 light of SAUSD s needs and is grossly unfair in light of the 160 acres of land which it is providing to Tustin Unified, Irvine Unified, and SOCCCD In light of the foregoing, the Concerned Parties respectfully submit that the City should refrain from taking any action to certify the FEIS/FEIR or to approve GPA 00 -001 until the CEQA - related deficiencies noted herein have been corrected and the FEIS /FEIR has been recirculated for public review and comment. bcc: Dr Edward Hernandez Dr Al Mijares Dr Don Stabler Martin N Burton, Esq. Ruben Smith, Esq. Victor /Susan Garcia Fortino/Bertha Rivera Karina Valenzuela R SCCD \M CA S -Lan dTmsfr \Dgdon 3. Doc Very truly yours, Edmc d M. Connor • • EXHIBIT "A" PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC. • Public Finance Urban Economics Development Services January 16 2001 Mr Dana Ogdon Senior Project Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Re GPA -00 -001 FEIS /FEIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS- Tustin Dear Mr Ogdon Introduction At the request of counsel for Santa Ana Unified School District ( "SAUSD "), Public Economics, Inc ( "PEI ") has prepared this response ( "Response') to certain staff comments set forth in Attachments 5 and 6 to the Agenda Report to City Manager William Huston," prepared by City staff in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment No 00 -001 and certification of the FEIS /FEIR by the City Council of the City of Tustin ( "City ') at the public hearing scheduled for January 16 2001 In particular this Response addresses comments of City staff regarding the number of new students projected to be generated within SAUSD from proposed redevelopment ofMCAS- Tustin. PEI is California's leading provider of redevelopment consulting services to the education community Since its founding in 1992, PEI has been involved in more than three - fourths of all redevelopment plans and amendments approved in the State of California— including a number of military base closures —on behalf of over 200 local school districts, community college districts, and county offices of education. Dwight Berg, principal investigator for this Response, has personally advised over 125 school districts and community college districts regarding the impacts of growth and development in general, and redevelopment in particular Mr Berg has a Master of Science degree in Social Science with an emphasis in Economics, and Bachelor of Science degrees in Economics and Engineering, all from the California Institute of Technology 820 W Town and Country Road Orange CA 92868 -4712 (714) 647 -6242 FAX (714) 647 -6232 World Wide Weh• hhlp/ /www.puh -econ cam January 16, 2001 Mr Dana Ogdon Page 2 • • Analysis The FEIS /FELR relies on the (i) Updated Report on the Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the MCAS Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Ana Unified School District ( "DMC Report"), prepared by Dennis Macheski Consulting ( "DMC ") in May 1999 and (ii) Updated Report School Facility Construction Cost impact of Redevelopment (sic) of the MCAS Tustin Site on the Santa Ana Unified School District ('JCJ Report"), prepared by JCJ Associates in June 1999 Specifically City staff state that 'the DMC Report brackets a high and low range of probable household impacts to the [District, and the ] JCJ Report uses the DMC Report high and low impact assumptions to identify a range of students. Based on the DMC and JCJ Reports, the FEIS/FEiR concludes that proposed redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin will generate only 82 to 509 new students for SAUSD As further support for this conclusion, City staff refers to a report prepared by PEI in July 1996 for SAUSD entitled Analysis of the Impact of MCAS - Tustin Reuse Plan on Santa Ana Unified School District' (` 1996 PEI Report "), in which PEI projected an impact of 404 new households and 272 new students. City staff fails to disclose that the 1996 PEI Report utilized student generation factors which are now out-of-date, and were not used by JCJ in calculating the figures reported in the FEIS /FEIR. The 1996 PEI Report used 0 673 K 12 students per household, which in 1998 the District updated to 0 93 K -12 students per household, the factor used in the FEIS /FEIR. In January 2000 the District updated the factor to 0 99S K -12 students per household —an increase of about 7 percent For purposes of this letter and for the sake of comparison, all figures from the 1996 PEI Report have been adjusted to reflect the 1998 student generation factor utilized in the FEiS /FEIR except where noted. Using the 1998 student generation rate, the 1996 PEI Report would have shown a projected impact of 377 new students. (Using the 2000 student generation rate, the 1996 PEI Report would have shown a projected impact of 402 new students.)' in referring to the 1996 PEI Report, City staff also fails to disclose the true purpose for which that report was prepared Specifically the 1996 PEI Report was prepared to identify the minimum number of students that would be generated by the proposed redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin, in a manner consistent with the requirements proposed at the time regarding how mitigation payments by the redevelopment agency for MCAS- Tustin should be determined. City staff did note that the 1996 PEi Report was based on the City's original estimate that 26,180 new on -site jobs will be created at MCAS- Tustin. If the 1996 PEI Report had been based on the revised estimate of 24,852 new jobs utilized in the FEIS /FEIR the revised number of new students would be slightly less 111311 the amounts shown above January 16, 2001 Mr Dana Ogdon Page 3 • • The 1996 PEI Report was prepared one and one -half years before the initial draft of the EIS/EIR was prepared, when the City of Tustin was claiming that the proposed redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin would have no direct or indirect impact on VATLSD The 1996 PEI Report utilized a conservative methodology to demonstrate that even under a 'best case" scenario from the City's point of view redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin would generate at least 377 new students in SAUSD resulting in a significant impact that the City needed to address in the EIS/EIR. Although a "worst case scenario is required to be examined in preparing an EIR, the 1996 PEI Report was not intended to serve that purpose. Indeed, that task was left to the City's consultants. If PEI had been asked to develop a "worst case" scenario, the projections would not only have been much higher than the projections set forth in the 1996 PEI Report, they would also have been considerably higher than the projections from the DMC and ICJ Reports that were incorporated within the FEIS/FEIR The fact of the matter is that in presenting a "worst case" scenario, the FEIS/FEIR greatly understate the true range of new students that would be generated by the proposed redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin. This is the result of the FEIS/FEIR's ignoring certain basic economic principles related to job growth in Orange County and misinterpreting or misapplying other economic data. As more frilly explained below if the FEIS /FEIR is corrected to properly apply such principles and data, the range of new students that would be generated by the proposed reuse of MCAS - Tustin would increase by approximately a factor of 10- from the current projections of 82 to 509 new students to a revised projection of 741 to 5 581 new students. The FEIS /FEIR underestimates the number of jobs at DICAS- Tustin that will he new to Orange County Method #2 of the FEIS/FEIR estimates that redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin will generate only 82 new students for SAUSD This projection is based on the following assumptions: (1) 90 percent of the 24,852 jobs created on -site at MCAS- Tustin will involve firms which simply relocate from elsewhere in Orange County (ii) all such jobs will involve the same employees as previously and (iii) none of these same employees will relocate their residence in order to be The term 'significant impact' appears to be applied differently by PEI than by the City of Tustin. PEI deems significant any students generated over and above SAUSD's existing student capacity (based on State guidelines) The City does not identify any objective criteria to be used in determining 'significant, other than to suggest that, if enough students were generated to fill an entire grade school, middle school, or high school, then the student generation impact would be deemed 'significant' under CEQA. PEI is not aware of any such standard being used in California to gauge the significance of estimated increases in student enrollment. January 16 2001 Mr Dana Ogdon Page 4 closer to their place of work. However these assumptions are simply untenable for at least four reasons • • First, the FEIS/FEIR ignores the fact that at least 1 934 (7 8 percent) of the jobs to be created on -site at MCAS - Tustin are of such a site specific nature that they could not possibly be relocated" from somewhere else in the County ((FEIS/FEIR at p 4 -18) The regional and community parks, the golf course, the learning village, the housing facilities are unique land uses which are not at all suitable for relocation, as opposed to land uses which might house tenants that relocate from other buildings We believe that this is an oversight of the FEIS /FEIR rather than an attempt to claim that a golf course, regional park, or other similar facility will actually be relocated to MCAS- Tustin. Correcting this oversight alone nearly doubles the impact projected in the FEIS /FE[R. Many of the R & D or professional office jobs that will be created in the land use areas designated as commercial/business, commercial, and community core (these three land uses are projected to create 22,394 jobs out of a total of 24 852 jobs) may well relocate from elsewhere an the County However many of the jobs associated with the retail, wholesale, and discount businesses that are also projected for these land use areas will be new to the County Indeed, at least some of these jobs will be 'big box" retail establishments such as Wal -Mart. Such large -scale chain businesses are most likely to open new stores at MCAS - Tustin to serve areas that they did not previously serve (including the 12 500 new residents the FEIS /FEIR projects will live at MCAS- Tustin) as opposed to closing a store and relocating It to MCAS- Tustin. Second, the FEIS /FEIR fails to provide any ciedible data to substantiate its claim that only 10% of the jobs at MCAS - Tustin could" be new to Orange County i e that 90 percent of such jobs would be filled by current County residents. City staff has stated that this claim is based on interviews with research personnel, brokers, and staff economists at certain companies and agencies. However City staff fails to specifically identify any person interviewed or more importantly what questions such persons were asked or what assumptions they were asked to make in arriving at this 90 percent figure No verifiable information regarding these supposed responses is provided in the FEIS /FEIR Third, the FEIS /FEIR claims that not only will 90 percent of the jobs at MCAS- Tustin simply relocate from elsewhere within the County but that such relocation will not have any impact on SAUSD In so doing, the FEIS /FEIR entirely ignores the phenomenon known to urban economists as `backfill. The FEIS /FEIR could just as easily claim that the new housing units at MCAS- Tustin will be occupied by other residents of Orange County who move to MCAS- Tustin, but whose former January 16 2001 • • Mr Dana Ogdon Page 5 homes will never be occupied by new residents. Of course, such a claim would be inappropriate since the former homes of new Tustin residents are 'backfilled' by new occupants. The FEIS /FEIR appears to correctly accounts for the backfill phenomenon when it comes to residential uses. However the FEIS /FEIR appears to ignore the backfill phenomenon when it comes to non - residential uses With non - residential uses, backfill occurs when commercial /industrial space previously occupied by businesses that relocate to new space is ultimately occupied by other firms new to the County (or by other firms that move from elsewhere in the County which in turn vacate space filled by firms from outside the County).' By ignoring the backfill phenomenon for non - residential uses, the FEIS/FEiR implicitly assumes that the 7 8 million square feet of business space vacated by businesses that allegedly relocate to MCAS- Tustin trill remain vacant indefinitely Of course, this assumption is just as inappropriate for non - residential uses as for residential uses Because of backfill, even if all new jobs at MCAS- Tustin went to existing workers in the County (which we dispute) there will still be substantial net additional impacts on total County employment. However the FEiS /FEiR fails to consider these additional unpacts. Additional employment impacts will depend not only on the backfill, but on such factors as the number of County residents currently (i) employed outside the County (ii) unemployed, or (iii) not in the labor force. However in clainung that 90 percent of the new jobs at MCAS - Tustin will be tilled by persons who already have jobs in the County the FEIS/FEIR not only ignores the backfill, it presents no analysis of any of these factors As a result, the 90 percent claim seems highly unlikely given that Orange County is a net exporter of jobs (i.e there are more jobs in the County than there are employed County residents), unemployment rates are at historic lows, and labor force participation is at all time highs. Finally should any significant portion of the jobs at MCAS - Tustin simply relocate from elsewhere in Orange County the FEIS/FEIR also ignores the likelihood that some of the workers who hold ' New jobs lead to migration of new workers to fill these jobs, and migrating employees may follow or precede local job creation. In its report 'Causes of Growth and Possible Control measures in the San Diego Region (Agenda Report No. R -83 September 11 1987), the San Diego Association of Govermnents ('SANDAG ") states that 'many of these labor -force dependent migrants are lured to the area by non - economic factors such as climate and environment. But without a job or at least the prospect of one, they would not migrate here, or after arnval, would be unable to afford a permanent stay Moreover, migration impacts are relevant even 'if all new lobs went to local workers, in which case migrants would simply 'back -fill' a large share of the jobs vacated by local residents, i e take the existing 'Group A jobs vacated by current residents who take new jobs, or fill existing 'Group B' jobs vacated by current residents who fill the 'Group A jobs, and so on January 16 2001 • • Mr Dana Ogdon Page 6 those jobs will relocate to SAUSD in order to be closer to their place of work. City staff claims that the number of workers who do relocate to SAUSD to be closer to their place of work is negligible However staff fails to provide any evidence to support such claim or to quantify the amount of relocating workers that they deem to be negligible in light of the foregoing, we believe that a figure of at least 50 percent— compared to the City's figure of 10 percent— is much more reasonable for establishing the low end of the range of new jobs at MCAS - Tustin that will also be new to Orange County and that 100 percent is an appropriate figure for establishing the high end of the range. The 50 percent figure still appears highly conservative, since even if all on -site jobs are relocated from elsewhere in the County it assumes that either one -half of the old space will not be backfilled, and /or one -half of the new on -site jobs will be filled by persons previously employed outside the county or previously unemployed or not in the labor force. Accordingly in Alternative Methods (B) and (D) below 50 percent is substituted for the 10 percent figure used in Method 112 of the FEIS /FEIR as a low end measure of the percentage of jobs projected to be filled by employees who are new to Orange County The FELS%FFIR fails to include indirect and induced jobs in all of its Methods. Method 42 of the FEIS /FEIR properly notes that on -site jobs at MCAS- Tustin will have a multiplier' effect; that for every on -site job at MCAS- Tustin, there will be a combined total of 0 61 additional oil -site jobs created by firms that (i) sell to or buy from on -site firms (indirect lobs), and (ii) produce or sell goods to new employees (induced fobs). However Method 1! I of the FEiS /FEIR entirely ignores the impacts associated wrth such indirect or induced jobs (DMC Report pp 3 -4 6) City staff has stated that Method 112 was intended "to calculate direct and indirect employment that would occur from implementation of the project," while that was not the intent of Method 41 However this results in the anomalous situation in which Method 42, which includes direct and indirect (i.e. multiplier) effects, generates fewer impacts than Method N1 which ignores multiplier effects If the City expects there to be multiplier effects, the only meaningful way to bracket a range of impacts is to show multiplier effects in all scenarios. Moreover since multiplier effects result from direct employment impacts, to exclude multiplier effects from Method 41 because it uses total on -site employment, not direct impacts, invalidates the usefulness of Method #1 for bracketing impacts.' ° Perhaps failure to acknowledge this point in the FEIS /FEIR and related staff reports, is based on confusion by staff regarding the meaning of direct impacts. On the one hand, staff uses direct' to refer to strident January /6, 2001 Mr Dana O4c1on Page 7 • • In addition, City staff has stated that to use a multiplier for [Method] 41 would result in identical conclusions for both [Methods]." This is clearly not the case as long as "direct employment in Method N I is assumed to reflect the worst case of 100 percent of on -site jobs (as currently shown in that scenario and recommended by PEi on the previous page) rather than 10 percent as shown in Method 1)2. if the same 0 61 multiplier for these indirect or induced jobs used in Method #2 is applied to Method 41 the number of new students generated within SAUSD increases by 60 5 percent, i.e. from 509 new students to 819 new students based on 1998 student generation factors (876 new students based on 2000 student generation factors —see Alternative Method A below) The FELS %FEIR improperly utilizes the "Household Capture" figure from OCP -96 in each of its Methods. The FEIS /FEIR references the following statistic from OCP -96 `3 8% of the housing growth in Orange County from 2000 -2020 will be captured by Santa Ana. in each of the two methodologies it uses for projecting the number of new students within SAUSD the FEIS/FETR misapplies this statistic by assuming that only 4 0 percent of the workers taking the new jobs created at MCAS-Tustin will live in homes located within Santa Ana. The household location of workers is based on two major factors' 6) commuting patterns and (ii) housing affordability Neither commuting patterns nor housing affordability is directly dependent on the number of homes being created in Santa Ana relative to the number of homes being created elsewhere in Orange County Therefore, the 3 8 percent figure from OCP -96 which estimates the percentage of all housing growth countywide that will be captured by Santa Ana between 2000 and 2020 bears no direct correlation to the number of workers who fill the new jobs created at MCAS -Tustin and establish new households in Santa Ana. Moreover the OCP -96 figure in no way considers the type of jobs that will be created at MCAS - Tustin. As stated above, a significant number of such jobs are service, retail, clerical, warehouse, or other similar types of jobs that tend to offer moderate pay at best. However housing to be constricted at MCAS - Tustin is predominately upscale, single- family housing that will invariably be beyond the economic means of many of the workers who fill these types of jobs generation impacts of on -site housing, and indirect' to refer to student impacts of generated by job creation. On the other hand, staff uses direct' to refer to those on -site jobs that have multiplier effects, and indirect' to the multiplier effects themselves (which in fact include 'indirect' impacts— off -site jobs created by firms within the region that sell to or buy from on -site firms —and 'induced' impacts —off -site jobs created by firms within the region that produce or sell goods and services demanded by new employees). Jamuny 16, 2001 Mr Dana Ogdon Page 8 • • ( FEIS/FEIR at p 4 -20) As a result, workers filling these jobs will need to find affordable housing 111 other areas and communities near MCAS- Tustin Accordingly it is very important that the data used to estimate the number of workers at MCAS - Tustin who are likely to establish new households in Santa Ana account for housing affordability in Santa Ana and other communities around MCAS- Tustin. By including data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns —and by inference, housing affordability Census data prove a much more appropriate source than OCP 96 for estimating the number of workers who will establish new households in Santa Ana. Census data from 1990 show that out of 178 187 jobs in Santa Ana, 45 414 workers (25 49 percent) also live in Santa Ana. in other words, 25 49 percent of jobs in Santa Ana are filled by workers who found Santa Ana to be within a reasonable commuting distance and to provide affordable housing. Census data also show that of 1 123 048 jobs in Orange County 81 313 workers (7.24 percent) live in Santa Ana. Since MCAS- Tustin is located within and directly adjacent to SAUSD it is expected that a similar percentage of workers from jobs at MCAS Tustin will reside within SAUSD in other words, it is pnident to estimate that somewhere between 7 24 percent and 25 49 percent of workers will reside within SAUSD based on Census data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns, and by inference, housing affordability Accordingly in Alternative Methods (B), (C), (D), and (E) below the figures of 7 24 percent and 25 49 percent derived from the 1990 Census have been substituted for the 4 percent figure that the DMC Report derived from OCP -96 Alternative methodologies for estimating the number of additional students to be generated in SA USD bi' redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin. Alternative Method (A) This alternative method consists of Method #1 from the FEIS/FEIR modified to include the additional indirect /induced jobs which the DMC Report included in its Method #2 but unjustifiably excluded from Method #1 The number of indirect or induced jobs that is utilized in this alternative method is the same number that is estimated by the City in the FEiS/FEIR. (FEiS /FEIR at p 4 -18) By simply including the number of new students that will be generated by these indirect or induced jobs, the FEIS/FEIR's projection of 509 new students increases to 819 with 1998 student generation rates (876 students with 2000 student generation rates) By companson. the 1990 Census also demonstrates that of the 33 531 people who work in Tustin. only 5 789 (17 26 percent) also live in Tustin. The fact that the number of workers who live and work in Santa Ana is more than eight percentage points higher than the number that work and Ine in Tustin suggest that housing is more affordable in Santa Ana than in Tustin —and as a result, that Santa Ana would draw relatively more of the workers from MCAS- Tustin. January 16, 2001 Mr Darxr Ogdon Page 9 • • Alternative Method ail phis alternative method is based on Method 112 from the FEiS /FEIR with two modifications bast, it substitutes 50 percent for the 10 percent figure that the DMC Report used to estimate the number of jobs created at MCAS Tustin that would be new to Orange County Second, it substitutes the 7 24 percent figure derived from the 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure used by the FEIS/FEIR to estimate the number of new household created by redevelopment of MCAS- ustm that will locate within SAUSD These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS -1 ustm to increase by a factor of nine from 82 to 741 new students with 1998 student generation rates (793 students with 2000 student generation rates) Ahernatrne Mcthod (C2 This alternative method is based on Method #I from the FEIS /FEIR with two modifications first, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total number of jobs created by MCAS i ustin Second, it uses the 7 24 percent figure to estimate the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS Tustin that will locate within SAUSD These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS l ustin to increase by a factor of nearly 3 from 509 to 1 482 with 1998 student generation rates (1,585 students with 2000 student generation rates) Alternotrve Mcthod (D) I his alternative method is based on Method 112 from the FLIS/FE1R with two modifications I first, it uses the 50 percent figure to estimate the number of jobs created at MCAS Tustin that will be new to Orange County Second, it substitutes the 25 49 percent figure derived from 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure utilized by the FEIS /FEIR to estimate the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS iustm that will locate within SAUSD these two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS -1 ustm to increase by a factor of nearly 32 from 82 to 2,192 new students with 1998 student generation rates (2 791 students with 2000 student generation rates) Alternative Mcthod (1') phis alternative method is based on Method #1 from the 1 EiS/FEIR with two modifications first, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total number of jobs created by MCAS - Tustin Second it uses the 25 49 percent figure to eslun'te the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin that will reside within SAUSD These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin to increase by a factor of more than 10 from 509 10 5 217 new students with 1998 student generation rates (5,581 students with 2000 student generation rates) Conclusion in conclusion by making reasonable modifications to the basic assumptions upon which the new household estimates set forth in the FEIS/FEiR are based, a more credible range of estimates January 16, 200/ • • Mr Dana Ogdon Page 10 emerges to better define the student generation Impacts on SAUSD which will be caused by redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin. The current "best case" and "worst case" scenarios set forth in the FEIS/FEIR (i e. 82 to 509 additional students) are simply not credible and should be revised upward (i.e to 741 to 5,217 students based on 1998 student generation factors (and to 793 to 5,581 new students based on 2000 student generation factors) in light of the points discussed above. Sincerely yours, Public Economics, Inc. BY Lihi L�+Fi__,r Dwight Berg, P E. 7 (U, Consultant attachment K \SANTA AN USD\ EIRRESPS SAKI • oNm'n910V3B,ILLS111\051'NY V1NYS.N .snsua0 0661 W08 ( °° 64 St) euy elves Jo 6110 Jo) erg walled atnwwoo satnptsgns oily (3) polpayy snsua0 0661 woad (%6 C SZ) euy rlue' Jed mep walled alnwwoa oul, ewes (11) sold °Reaua01ad 1ualwioldwa panp annewale (r) salnlpsgns aide (Q) potgayy snsua0 0661 woad (/ CZ L) S1uno0 a2ueao Jai erg waned alnunuoa ouv nueg salnpsgns osle (D) poypayy snsua0 0661 woad (0, pZ'L) S1uno0 oPueao 1oj clip walled >)nunuo> cuv cues pi) snld 'a8eluaaaad luawdoldwa panp aAllewage (I) salwnsgns osio (g) poylajy 2I13dB13d ul suotlelnalea !p pogo) \ aq1 woad papnloxa an gmgm spoedwl qof paonpul/panpw apnpw (3) q nolgl (y) spotpajy IRS'S 161.1Z SBS'I f6L 9L8 RR CPS ias0 T6- 0 ;337 s 66 0 s 66 66 0 TR 0 609'S SOR'Z (6S 1 L6L ORR 88 LTS LIZ'S 809'Z ZBC'1 IPL 618 ZZR Rf r6-5 L6 0 tb nil 609`S S08'Z £6S`l L6L OR8 88 LtS °061- se ° /6T S6 ^ i. =7o6'LZ %000 'o0 UT ° /00T 900`Zt E00!! 900`ZZ £0011 900`ZZ IOZ`Z 899'EI 1'000 ii 11000 i '000 is %OOSs %0016 ^ /000SS °. GOO 5S 010`OC S00'OZ 010`00 S00'0Z o10'OC 100'\ 1S8`TZ 6SI SI ORS 651 S1 ORS 651I4SI 9IS I 0 T910 19 0 T4"0 WO 19 0 19 0 II0-0 1S8'CZ 911CZI IS8CZ 921- Z1 IS8CZ S81'Z RR CZ %00 001 %00 05 °100 00l °/ 00 05 °100 06( 71:ur 0T °/ OO FIT IS8'CZ 158 r ISBbt 158 CZ IS8`CZ lS8'TZ IS8CZ �Ip Zp I# 3) po4layy la) p04131y l0) po4plA manually aAtlew?Ily ?A ljew?jly Zp IA VN bN ) P °4 al' (VTTP041n PI Z Pl'41a1q f# Po41al\ aAIIEwalIV S133R1133 Sl3d/N133 annowa1Iy (000z) ,LOvaivi IN3anis (0002) plogasnolj cad ogey uonelauao luapnlS s,QSflV S music looting pa4wn auy ems ay, ut 1A13 01 p jawns3 p (8661).L)VJPU 3.N3anIS (8661) ployasnop lad ones uogeaauap luapnlS SOSflV S pulsiQ IooPPS pa jwn cry+ elu'S ail w aArl 01 Paltunu3 «„ vutsla loo46S palJwn e1M elves ail UI aAr! 01 palawtls3 1uawSoldw3 pappV Lplm plleuossy (luno0 a9ueao 011 sployasno!{ ,Munoz) a2ualo w saadoldw3 0j sployasnop to one)! .(pa >npul }>anpul yow1Q) iepod, luawfo!dw3 spodwl 1uaw6oldw3 paanpu!floanpul 'wxul,(oldw3 paanptq put panpul lo) laydll {nyy wlwioldw3 uatQ maN A)uno0 1901010 od, MIN patewns3 % luaulioldw3 a11S.u0 i 1N potpayy 513381131 01 spuodsaaloo po4layy annewally 1-° all (alew In7.Lf)OQ li(ld 1ud nu lgrIn31 a mo!aa pa11111n0 cuopeay!Po1N tin pasea (3) Puy'(u) (3) (a) (y) rimy N1331st33 Mond za P0301A, Puy TO potonti uI3sny- syJyuIo 3uawdolanapag a£q QSLIVS ulq)IA% pawaaua3 aq oa sluap!US rump ppV Jo aagwnu 2ul3ewl3sI aoj sa!2olopotpaic angtuaal(y Jo Saewwng i iIamxa • • EXHIBIT "B" San& Ana Unified 4hool District FACILITIES PLANNING AI Mijares, Ph.D Superintendent January 16, 2001 Mr Dana Ogdon Senior Project Manager City of Tustin 100 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Re: GP 4-00-0° FEIS /FEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS- Tustin Dear Mr Ogdon: At the request of Connor Blake & Griffin LLi' the attorneys for the Santa Ana Unified School District ( "SAUSD ") and the Rancho Santiago Community College District ( "RSCCD ") [hereinafter SAUSD and RSCCD shall collectively he referred to as thc Districts'), 1 have been asked to submit this letter in response to certain comments set forth in Attachments 5 and 6 to the Agenda Report to City Manager William Huston, which has been prepared by the Redevelopment Agency staff in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 00 -001 ( "GP A 00 -001 ') and the certification of the related FEIS /FEIR by thc City Council of the City of Tustin (the `City') at the public hearing scheduled for January 16 2001 1 am currently employed as a facilities planner in the Facilities Planning Department of SAUSD and 1 am presently completing my doctoral studies at the School of Social Ecology at the University of California at Irvine Prior to working for SAUSD I provided planning services for the Cities of Westminster and Long Beach. My present duties include the coordination and administration of facilities planning activities related to new school construction, renovation of existing schools, and other support activities. A large portion of my current workload involves the acquisition of land for the new school facilities, which SAUSD desperately needs. My work in this area has included research regarding the feasibility of developing new schools at the Marine Corps Air Station at Tustin, California ( "MCAS- Tustin '). In the Agenda Report prepared for the public hearing to he held on GPA 00 -001 on January 16 2001 staff continues to assert that the redevelopment of WAS- Tustin will neither (1) generate any significant adverse impacts on public services and facilities within the two Districts, nor (2) necessitate the City s adoption of any mitigation measures to minimize such adverse impacts by for example, designating surplus federal land at MCAS- Tustin to he set aside as new school sites for SAUSD and RSCCD 1 do not believe that the City has properly assessed the significant environmental effects associated the reuse of WAS- Tustin, particularly with respect to impacts on public services and facilities affecting thc Districts. In order to properly assess the significance of such environmental impacts, the City should consider all of the letters, testimony and other materials submitted to date on behalf of the 1601 East Chestnut Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92701 -6322 (714) 480-5357 BOARD OF EDUCATION Nadia Maria Davis, President Nativo Lopez, Vice President Sal Tinajero. Clerk Rosemarie Avila. Member John Palacio, Member • • Mr Dana Ogdon. January 16, 2001 Page 2 Districts with respect to the FEIS /FEiR, as well as the following additional facts which I have extrapolated from SAUSD s records and files. (1) SAUSD has a student population which is 96 °'o minority and is characterized by limited English language proficiency at a rate about three times that of the State and Orange County as a whole. About two - thirds of SAUSD s students reside in households with incomes at or below the federal poverty level. SAUSD experienced explosive enrollment growth during the latter 1980s and early 1990s. Though the pace of enrollment growth has moderated in recent years, thc State Class Size Reduction program that emerged suddenly in mid -1996 put additional stress on SAUSD s already overcrowded facilities, as classrooms had to he subdivided to accommodate no more than 20 students in the first and second grades throughout the District. To accommodate all of the school facilities needs, SAUSD has acquired over 400 portable classrooms and operates most of its elementary and intermediate schools on year -round schedules; (2) Enrollment counts at SAT JSD rose sharply through 1990 and the composition of its student population has changed markedly To date, virtually all students enrolled in SAUSD are members of one or another racial/ethnic minority (with Latinos comprising almost 92 °/° of all students) Socioeconomically nearly two- thirds qualify for free lunches; 71 °%possess limited English language skills; 40% are immigrants; (3) At the elementary level, nearly four students in five are limited English - proficient ( LEP "), and m many of SAUSD s elementary schools, LEP students collectively speak at least five separate primary languages, principally Spanish. Moreover anecdotal evidence suggests that particular neighborhoods may he evolving differently In community meetings held in connection with thc preparation of the FMP SAUSD's consultants heard accounts of areas where young families with children often rent homes formerly occupied by older empty nesters, extended families often pool resources to buy homes, and many families who cannot afford separate dwellings often double up in the same residence' (4) California is a major entry port into the United States, and Santa Ana and its schools are a conspicuous front doorstep into American society Many families who children attend SAUSD are newly legalized residents, the natural aftermath of the Immigration Reform and Control Act CIRCA '). Under thc 1RCA, some 66 000 persons in Santa Ana applied to legalize their status - -one of every 46 applicants nationwide in a city inhabited by 1 /1000th of the nation s population. According to a 1994 American Housing Survey 87% of households in Santa Ana with children send them to the City s public schools (vs. 81% for Orange County as a whole) Most transfers into SAUSD are children of parents holding jobs in Santa Ana, for whom convenience is a factor • • Mr Dana Ogdon. January 16, 2001 Page 3 (5) In recent years, scores of Mexicans immigrants from the community of GranJenal, for example, have settled in Santa Ana, essentially re- creating the community and supplying the next generation of more educated young adults. More recently nearly one fifth (4 417) of the 23 068 refugees commg to Orange County between 1990 and 1994 settled in Santa Ana. The pattern of settlement of California s new immigrants resembles that of earlier immigrants. As before, the mat only settled in a handful of California counties to tom their family and friends. The distinctiveness of Orange County is its increasing popularity as an intended designation of residence for immigrants; (6) Immigrant communities, once established, become conspicuous designations for future immigrants with common origins (as the movement from GranJenal to Santa Ana exemplifies). Newcomers eager to settle near kin and fiends manage to secure accommodations, doubling up and pushing levels of residential density (persons per household) even higher The household configuration of Santa Ana s population is distinctive. Residential density is extraordinarily high, yet continues to rise. Persons per household in 1997 averaged 4 19 far above any other city in Orange County. and (7) Santa Ana s population is conducive to future school enrollments. First, 30% of the population is under 18, well above the corresponding figure for the rest of Orange County or California. Second, a disproportionate share of Santa Ana s population is within the childbearing ages (18 -44 years). Santa Ana s age structure (conducive to future enrollments) and its surrounding setting (permeated by public school enrollment growth) are two distinctive features bearing on its future. In addition to the above listed facts, the new Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Santa Ana, which was adopted in December 2000 contains the following relevant facts: (1) Household Size. During the 1990s, there was an increase in average household size from 4 1 to 4.3 persons per household in Santa Ana; (2) Age Distribution. During the 1990s, the preschool (under 4) and prime working (25 -54) age groups added 9 000 and 15,000 persons respectively while all other age groups showed a decline or a very small increase, (3) Ethnicity The City s Hispanic population increased from about 65% of the total in 1990 to 68% in 1997 The Asian population increased from 9% to 10% dunng this same period, while the non - Hispanic White and African Amencan populations showed a net decline. (Housing Elements, p A 27 ) Attached hereto as Exhibits `1 through 4' are three charts and one table which i have prepared as follows: Mr Dana Ogdon. January 16, 2001 Page 4 (1) Exhibit 1 is a chart entitled Average School Enrollment, which compares the average enrollment of the elementary muddle, and high schools for the SAUSD the Tustin Unified School Distnct, and the Irvine Unified School District. Exhibit A was prepared based on information obtained from the California Department of Education and the FEIS/FEIR for MCAS- Tustin; (2) Exhibit '2' is a chart entitled 'Housing Estimates, Jan. 1 2000 which compares the average number of persons per household for the Cities of Santa Ana, Tustin, and Irvine and the County of Orange. Exhibit 'B' was prepared based on information obtained from the California Department of Finance, (3) Exhibit '3 is a chart entitled 'Companson of SAUSD School Densities With California Department of Ed. Recommended Average Student Per Acre, which compares the average number of students per acres for elementary middle, and high schools in the SAUSD to the recommended averages for such schools. Exhibit 'C was prepared based on information obtained from the California Department of Education; and (4) Exhibit 4' is a table entitled `SAUSD Enrollments, Acreage, and MTYRE info which summarizes the number of students, the size in acres, the number of students per acre, and the type of multi-track year round education ( "MTYRE T), if any for each school in the SAUSD The table also provides average information for the all elementary Huddle, and high schools in the District, as well as the District as a whole. Exhibit 4' was prepared based on the SAUSD s own data. Hopefully the data provided above, as well as the charts and table enclosed herewith, will assist the City in reevaluating the environmental impacts associated with the City s Reuse Plan for MCAS - Tustin and will enable it to conclude that (1) the project will have significant adverse effects on minority populations seeking to avail themselves of public services and facilities with the two Districts and (2) such impacts need to be adequately mitigated by among other things, designating surplus federal land at MCAS - Tustin to be used for new school sites for the Districts. Very truly yours. Colette Marie McLaughlin Planner SAUSD • • EXHIBIT "1" way 'ewoyspego /serwsoiydea6owap/no6 eo apo MMM / /:dug �uew OW] 100 439 eBeieAv 0 009 000` I- 00S' le 000`Z 009' 000`E 009'c • • EXHIBIT "2" Hosing Estimates, Jan i, 2000 50- 45- 40 35 3 0 •-• ▪ . ...,-_.m.', w •••••• A ..▪ ... 20 ... • 5r f k a �, • • •� 15 _ l . aid ,„ _ a :r: r 10 • ■ • , Am....:•:.- _ Persons /Household ▪ Irvine 2 9 O Santa Ana 4 3 ® Tustin 2 9 e Orange County 3 1 http / /www dot ca gov /html /DemograplE 5text.htm • • EXHIBIT "3" • • 66 /2Z /b Palep ueJa ;uewdo;anep pue sisX;euy eps;oogog (s,300) s,uopeanp3 ;o nuawpedea ;lea Zl pue 6 8 L se qel Z 06 b 601, 2656 6AV aSfVS 0 6 it ZL L .179 6AV300E SH SW W919 0 OZ Ott 09 09 001- 031- 0171- 091- 081- aaoy Jed ;uapn ;S e6eaanv papuewwooeN p3 4o luewpedea eluao4gea guM segisuaa looyoS asnvS 4o uospedwoa • 1 EXHIBIT "4" SAUSI) Enroloents, Acreage, and NITS Info nTFYItE (multi -track School 10/99 C13EUS Acres Students per acre year round education) Adams 856 6 75 127 4 cycles Carver 780 4 03 194 4 cycles Davis 780 4 75 164 4 cycles Diamond 935 5 58 168 4 cycles Edison 1,042 3.69 282 4 cycles Franklin 643 2.53 254 1 cycle Fremont 1 124 2 88 390 4 cycles Garfield 1 106 4.99 222 4 cycles Grant' 337 2 75 123 Greenville 986 6 5 152 Harvey 595 5 5 108 Heninger 1,088 6.69 163 4 cycles Hoover 1,208 4 47 270 4 cycles Jackson 1,233 9 52 130 4 cycles Jefferson 966 9.64 100 Kennedy 970 6 162 4 cycles King 1 056 4.98 212 4 cycles Lincoln 1,306 9.53 137 4 cycles Lowell 1 056 5 12 206 4 cycles Madison 1,281 6 12 209 4 cycles Martin 993 6 81 146 4 cycles Monroe 906 6.6 137 Monte Vista 921 9.98 92 4 cycles Muir 948 8 86 107 Pio Pico 948 4.27 222 4 cycles Remington 575 4.05 142 Romero -Cruz 431 2.3 187 4 cycles Roosevelt 1 177 5.57 211 4 cycles Santiago 1106 8.97 123 Sepulveda 940 5 44 173 4 cycles Taft 1 153 10 115 Thorpe 763 6.67 114 Walker 914 7 1 129 4 cycles Washington 1,327 8 63 154 4 cycles Wilson 1,164 3.86 302 4 cycles Total K 5 33,614 211 13 159.2 Carr 1,833 25.22 73 4 cycles Lathrop 1 779 7 65 233 4 cycles MacArthur 1,236 10 124 McFadden 1 748 24 18 72 Mendez' 1,300 12 108 Sierra 1 010 11.84 85 2 cycles Spurgeon 1,573 19 83 2 cycles Villa 1 168 11 25 104 Willard 1,623 9 79 166 Total 6 -8 13,270 130.93 101 4 the number below is Century 2,707 24.99 108 students per acre Chavez 243 2.47 98 adjusted by adding Middle College 236 0 NA students from new Mountain View* 240 2 44 98 schools and Saddleback 2,986 36 44 82 excluding students Santa Ana 3 449 24.3 142 from schools that Valley 2,829 50 02 57 share facilities Total 9 -12 12,690 140.66 90.2 Total All Grades 57,937 482.72 122.9 new schools counts are excluded from total enrollment but are included in adjusted students /acre student enrollment count has been excluded from adjusted students /acre • • EXHIBIT "C" PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC • Pubbc Finance Urban Economics Development Services January 16 2000 Mr Dana Ogdon Senior Project Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 • Re GPA 00 001, FEIS /FEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin Dear Mr Ogdon Introduction At the request of counsel for Rancho Santiago Community College District ( CCD ") Public Economics Inc ( "PEI ") has prepared this response ( "Response ") to certain staff comments set forth in Attachments 5 and 6 to the "Agenda Report to City Manager, Witham Huston " prepared by City staff in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment No 00 001 ind certification of the FEIS /1 EIR by the City Council of the City of Tustin ('City' ) at the public hearing scheduled for January 16, 2001 In particular this Response addresses continents of City staff that "there is no feasible way to evaluate indirect impacts' of MCAS Tustin on the CCD PEI is California's leading provider of redevelopment consulting services to the education community Since its founding in 1992 PEI has been involved in more than three - fourths of all redevelopment plans and amendments approved in the State of California- including a number of military base closures on behalf of over 200 local school districts community college districts, and county offices of education Dante Gumucio CEO of PEI, has personally advised over 200 school districts and community college districts regarding the impacts of growth and development in general, and redevelopment in particular Mr Gumucio has over 20 years academic and consulting experience He has been on the fill time economics faculty at California State University Fullerton (and taught part time at Chapman University) where his classes 820 W 7oivn -ind Country Road Orange CA 32868 -4712 (714) 647 6242 FAX (714) 647 6232 World With Web hhtp/ /wivw.pub -econ -coin • • Mr Dana Ogclon January 16, 2001 Page 2of10 included urban economics, benefit -cost analysis, public finance, and mathematical economics, as well as classes in the MPA and MBA programs. Fle has also taught in the University extension at the University of California, Irvine, including courses in the Economic Fundamentals of Planning and Development and Financial Aspects of Planning. Ile is a Ph.D candidate in Economics and has a Master of Science degree in Economics, both from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics from Brigham Young University Background In comments submitted on November 28, 2000 on the CCD's behalf by Connor Blake & Griffin (' Connor "), that firm noted that the FE1S /FEIR contains no analysis of the number of credit or non - credit students that will be added to the CCD due to redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin. In its response to Connor s continents, City staff stated that 'there is no feasible way to evaluate indirect impacts [of job creation] on the [CCD]. Moreover City stair also stated that 'there is no universally recognized methodology for projecting indirect impacts [of job creation] on a community college district. The first statement is incorrect and the second statement is irrelevant Just because student generation factors are expressed relative to residential dwelling units (' DUs ) or resident population within a school district does not mean that it is infeasible to project the impact on student generation of non - residential development. To the contrary K 12 districts typically levy developer fees on non - residential development based on a fee justification analysis which demonstrates a rational and substantial nexus between non - residential development and employment, migration, household formation, and K 12 student generation. Just because community college districts do not levy or have to justify developer fees does not mean that there is 1101 a similar rational and substantial nexus between non- residential development and employment and generation of conummity college students. Indeed, program Flits prepared for redevelopment plans, program EIRs prepared for general plans and specific plans, and various project EIRs have attempted to quantify the impacts of development on community college districts. And many such impact reports include not only the impact of non - residential development, but the impact of both direct and indirect /induced non - residential developrnent. The City attributes its position regarding the lack of a universally recognized methodology for estimating impacts on community colleges to the City s environmental consultant Cotton and Boland and Associates ( "CBA '). PEI is quite certain that it has reviewed EIRs prepared by CBA which do estimate the impacts of future development on • • Mr Dana Ogdon January 16 2001 Page 3 of 10 community college districts. And PEI does not know why such impacts were excluded from the FEIS /FEIR for MCAS- Tustin. However even if CBA had never included such impacts in EIRs for other projects (which PEI believes not to be the case), there are a number of other environmental firms which have included such impacts in their environmental documentation, and which use similar methods in doing so However even if there were not one single universally recognized methodology for estimating such impacts, what is required by CEQA, as well as by case law and the State and federal corust nut ions is not universality but rationality One such rational method is used by the California State Department of Finance and the State Chancellor s Office for California Community Colleges. This method involves applying credit enrollment rates to projected future populations over the age of 18 within a college district's (primary) service area. Following is an analysis prepared by PEI in conjunction with Rancho Santiago CCD stair which utilizes this very method. Analysis In projecting the impact on household formation of on -site employment at MCAS- Tustin, the FEIS /FEIR relies on the Updated Report on the Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the MCAS Tustin Site Upon Household (rtowth in the Santa Ana Unified School District ( "DMC Report "), prepared by Dennis Macheski Consulting ('DMC ") in May 1999 Had student generation rates available from the CCD for college credit and adult education enrollment been combined with household projections from the DMC Report, the FEIS /FEIR could have included estimates of enrollment impact on the CCD Unfortunately no such impacts were estimated. As shown in Exhibit I the CCD s combined credit /adult education student enrollment rate is 0 1392 students per service area population. PEI and the CCD have used household projections contained in the FEIS /FEIR to project future student generation for the CCD from redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin. however household projections in the FEIS /FEIR were for Santa Ana Unified School District ( "SAUSD "), which has a smaller geographic area and resident population than the CCD Hence PEI and the CCD have adjusted household projections for SAUSD for some scenarios to reflect the CCD's larger area. However the FEIS /FEIIt greatly understates the true range of new households that will be generated within SAUSD by reuse of MCAS- Tustin. This is the result of the FEIS /FEIR's ignoring certain basic economic principles related to job growth in Orange County and misinterpreting or misapplying other economic data. As more fully explained below if the FEIS /FEIR is corrected to properly apply such principles and • • Mr Dana Ogdon January 16 2001 Page 4 of 10 data, the number of new households within the boundaries of the CCD generated by reuse of MCAS- Tustin would range from 880 new households to 6,602 new households, which would increase student enrollment in the District by 303 to 2,270 new community college students. The FENS /FEIR underestimates the number of jobs at A/CA,S- Tustin that will be new to Orange County Method 42 of the FEIS /FEIR estimates that redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin will generate only 88 new households within SAUSD This projection is based on the following assumptions: (i) 90 percent of the 24,852 jobs created on -site at MCAS- Tustin will involve firms which simply relocate from elsewhere in Orange County (ii) all such jobs will involve the same employees as previously and (iii) none of these same employees will relocate their residence in order to be closer to their place of work. However these assumptions are simply untenable for at least four reasons. First, the FEIS /FEIR ignores the fact that at least 1 934 (7 8 percent) of the jobs to be created on -site at MCAS - Tustin are of such a site - specific nature that they could not possibly be "relocated' from somewhere else m the County (FEIS /FEIR at p. 4 -18) The regional and community parks, the golf course, the learning village, and housing facilities are unique land uses which are not at all suitable for relocation, as opposed to land uses which might house tenants that relocate from other buildings. We believe that this is an oversight of the FEIS /FE!R rather than an attempt to claim that a golf course, regional park, or other similar facility will actually be relocated to MCAS - Tustin. Correcting this oversight alone nearly doubles the impact projected in the FEIS /FEIR. Many of the R & D or professional office jobs that will he created in the land use areas designated as commercial/business, commercial, and community core (these three land uses are projected to create 22,194 jobs out of a total of 24,852 jobs) may well relocate from elsewhere in the County However many of the jobs associated with the retail, wholesale, and discount businesses that are also projected for these land use areas will be new to the County Indeed, at least some of these jobs will he 'big box' retail establishments such as Wal -Mart. Such large scale chain businesses are most likely to open new stores at MCAS- Tustin to serve areas that they did not previously serve (including the 12,500 new residents the FEIS /FEIR project will live at MCAS - Tustin) as opposed to closing a store and relocating it to MCAS- Tustin. Second, the FEIS /FEIR fails to provide any credible data to substantiate its claim that only 10% of the jobs at MCAS- Tustin "could' he new to Orange County i.e. that 90 • • Mr Dana Ogdon January 16, 2001 Page 5 of 10 percent of such jobs would be filled by current County residents. City staff has stated that this claim is based on interviews with research personnel, brokers, and staff economists at certain companies and agencies. However City staff fails to specifically identify any person interviewed or more importantly what questions such persons were asked or what assumptions they were asked to make in arriving at this 90 percent figure. No verifiable information regarding these supposed responses is provided in the FEIS /FEIR. Third, the FEIS /FEIR claims that not only will 90 percent of the jobs at MCAS- Tustin simply relocate from elsewhere within the County but that such relocation will not have any impact on SAUSD In so doing, the FEIS /FEIR entirely ignores the phenomenon known to urban economists as 'backfill. The FEIS /FEIR could just as easily claim that the new housing units at MCAS- Tustin will be occupied by other residents of Orange County who move to MCAS - Tustin, but whose former homes will never be occupied by new residents. Of course, such a claim would be inappropriate since the former hones of new Tustin residents are 'back filled' by new occupants. The FEIS /FEIR appears to correctly accounts for the backfill phenomenon when it cones to residential uses. However the FEIS /FEIR appears to ignore the backfill phenomenon when it comes to non - residential uses. With non - residential uses, backfill occurs when commercial/industrial space previously occupied by businesses that relocate to new space is ultimately occupied by other firms new to the County (or by other firms that stove from elsewhere in the County which in turn vacate space filled by firms from outside the County). By ignoring the backfill phenomenon for non - residential uses, the FEIS /FEIR implicitly assumes that the 7 8 million square feet of business space vacated by businesses that allegedly relocate to MCAS - Tustin will remain vacant indefinitely Of course, this assumption is just as inappropriate for non - residential uses as for residential uses. Because of back fill, even if new jobs at MCAS - Tustin went to existing workers in the County (which we dispute) there will still be substantial net additional impacts on total County employment. However the FEIS /FEIR fails to consider these additional impacts. Additional employment impacts will depend not only on the backfill, but on such factors as the number of County residents currently (1) employed outside the County (ii) unemployed, or (iii) not in the labor force. However in claiming that 90 percent of the new jobs at MCAS - Tustin will be filled by persons who already have jobs in the County • • Mr Dana Ogdon January 16, 2001 Page 6 of 10 the FEIS /FEIR not only ignores the backfill, it presents no analysis of any of these factors. As a result, the 90 percent claim sears highly unlikely given that Orange County is a net exporter of jobs (i.e. there are more jobs in the County than there are employed County residents), unemployment rates are at historic lows, and labor force participation is at all time highs. Finally should any significant portion of the jobs at MCAS- Tustin simply relocate from elsewhere in Orange County the FE1S/FEIR also ignores the likelihood that some of the workers who hold those jobs will relocate to SAUSD in order to be closer to their place of work. City staff claims that the number of workers who do relocate to SAUSD to be closer to their place of work is negligible. However staff fails to provide any evidence to support such claim or to quantify the amount of relocating workers that they deem to be negligible In light of the foregoing, we believe that a figure of at least 50 percent - compared to the City's figure of 10 percent is much more reasonable for establishing the low end of the range of new jobs at MCAS- Tustin that will also he new to Orange County and that 100 percent is an appropriate figure for establishing the high end of the range The 50 percent figure still appears highly conservative, sutce even if all on -site jobs are relocated from elsewhere in the County it assumes that either one -half the old space will not be backfilled, and /or one -half the new on -site jobs will be filled by persons previously employed outside the county or previously unemployed or not in the labor force. Accordingly in Alternative Methods (B) and (D) below 50 percent is substituted for the 10 percent figure used in Method #2 of the FEIS /FEIR as a low end measure of the percentage of jobs projected to be filled by employees who are new to Orange County The FC/S /FE /R fails to include indirect and induced jobs in all of its Methods. Method #2 of the FEIS /FEIR properly notes that on -site jobs at MCAS - Tustin will have a "multiplier" effect; that for every on -site job at MCAS- Tustin, there will he a combined total of 0.61 additional off -site jobs created by firms that (i) sell to or buy from on -site firms (indirect jobs), and (ii) produce or sell goods to new employees (induced jobs). However Method #1 of the FEIS /FEIR entirely ignores the impacts associated with such indirect or induced jobs (DMC Report pp. 3 -4 6). City staff has stated that Method #2 was intended 'to calculate direct and indirect employment that would occur from implementation of the project," while that was not the intent of Method #1 However this results in the anomalous situation in which Method #2, which includes direct and Indirect (i.e. multiplier) effects, generates %ever impacts • • Mr Dana Ogdon January 16, 2001 Page 7 of 10 than Method #1 which ignores multiplier effects If the City expects there to be multiplier effects, the only meaningful way to bracket a range of impacts is to show multiplier effects in all scenarios. Moreover since multiplier effects result from direct employment impacts, to exclude multiplier effects from Method #1 because it uses total on -site employment, not direct impacts, invalidates the usefulness of Method #1 for bracketing impacts. In addition, City staff has stated that "to use a multiplier for [Method] #1 would result in identical conclusions for both [Methods]. This is clearly not the case as long as "direct employment" in Method #1 is assumed to reflect the worst case of 100 percent of on -site jobs (as currently shown in that scenario and recommended by PEI on the previous page) rather than 10 percent as shown in Method #2. If the same 0 61 multiplier for these indirect or induced jobs used in Method #2 is applied to Method #1 the number of new students generated within CCD increases from 188 new students to 103 new students The FEJS /FEIR improperly utilizes the "Household Capture" figure from OCP 96 in each of its Methods: The FEIS /FEIR references the following statistic from OCP 96 '1 8% of the housing growth in Orange County from 2000 -2020 will be captured by Santa Ana. In each of the two methodologies it uses for projecting the number of new students within SAUSD the FEIS /FEIR misapplies this statistic by assuming that only 4 0 percent of the ux)rkerc taking the new jobs created at MCAS - Tustin will live in homes located within Santa Ana. The household location of workers is based on two major factors: (i) commuting patterns and (ii) housing affordability Neither commuting patterns nor housing affordability is directly dependent on the number of homes being created in Santa Ana relative to the number of homes being created elsewhere in Orange County Therefore, the 3 8 percent figure from OCP -96 which estimates the percentage of all housing growth countywide that will be captured by Santa Ana between 2000 and 2020 bears no direct correlation to the number of workers who fill the new jobs created at MCAS - Tustin and establish new households in Santa Ana. Moreover the OCP 96 figure in no way considers the type of jobs that will he created at MCAS - Tustin. As stated above, a significant number of such jobs are service, retail, clerical, warehouse, or other similar types of jobs that tend to offer moderate pay at best. • • Mr Dana Ogdon January 16, 2001 Page 8 of 10 However housing to be constructed at MCAS- Tustin is predominately upscale, single family housing that will invariably be beyond the economic means of many of the workers who fill these types of jobs (FEIS /FEIR at p. 4 -20). As a result workers filling these jobs will need to find affordable housing in other areas and communities near MCAS - Tustin. Accordingly it is very important that the data used to estimate the number of workers at MCAS - Tustin who are likely to establish new households in Santa Ana account for housing affordability in Santa Ana and other communities around MCAS- Tustin. By including data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns -and by inference, housing affordability - Census data prove a much more appropriate source than OCP 96 for estimating the number of workers who will establish new households in Santa Ana. Census data from 1990 show that out of 178,187 jobs in Santa Ana, 45 414 workers (25 49 percent) also live in Santa Ana. In other words, 25 49 percent of jobs in Santa Ana are filled by workers who found Santa Ana to be within a reasonable commuting distance and to provide affordable housing. Census data also show that of 1 123 048 lobs in Orange County 81,313 workers (7.24 percent) live in Santa Ana. Since MCAS- Tustin is located within and directly adjacent to SAUSD it is expected that a similar percentage of workers from jobs at MCAS Tustin will reside within SAUSD In other words, it is prudent to estimate that somewhere between 7.24 percent and 25 49 percent of workers will reside within SAUSD based on Census data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns, and by inference, housing affordability The boundaries of the CCD include all of SAUSD The comparative size of the two districts is indicated by their respective assessed valuations, which in FY 2000 -01 totaled $35.2 billion for the CCD and $15.5 billion for the SAUSD Nonetheless, PEI and CCD staff have adjusted the Census -based estimates for SAUSD of 7.24 percent and 25 49 percent by much less than the relative difference in assessed values. The adjusted estimates for the CCD conservatively range from 9 S percent to 30 percent. Accordingly in Alternative Methods (B), (C), (D), and (E) below the figures of 9.5 percent and 30 percent derived by adjusting the 1990 Census for SAUSD have been substituted for the 4 percent figure that the DMC Report derived from OCP 96. Alternative methodologies for estimating the number of additional students to be generated in CCD by redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin Alternative Method (A)' This alternative method consists of Method #I from the FEIS /FEIR modified to include the additional indirect /induced jobs which the DMC • • Mr Dana Ogdon January 16, 2001 Page 9 of l0 Report included in its Method #2 but unjustifiably excluded from Method #1 The number of indirect or induced jobs that is utilized in this alternative method is the same number that is estimated by the City in the FEIS/FEIR (FEIS /FEIR at p 4 18) By simply including the number of new students that will be generated by these indirect or induced jobs, the FEIS /FEIR would have a projection of 303 new CCD students Alternative Method (B) This alternative method is based on Method #2 from the FEIS /FEiR with two modifications First, it substitutes 50 percent for the 10 percent figure that the DMC Report used to estimate the number of jobs created at MCAS Tustin that would be new to Orange County Second it substitutes the 9 50 percent figure derived from the 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure used by the FEIS /FEIR to estimate the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS fustin that will locate within CCD These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS Tustin to increase to 359 Alternative Method (C) This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the FEIS /FEIR with two modifications First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total number of jobs created by MCAS Tustin Second, it uses the 9 50 percent figure to estimate the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS Tustin that will locate withm CCD These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS Tustin to increase to 719 Alternative Method (D) This alternative method is based on Method 112 from the FEIS /FEIR with two modifications First, it uses the 50 percent figure to estimate the number of jobs created at MCAS Tustin that will be new to Orange County Second, it substitutes the 25 49 percent figure denved from 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure utilized by the FEIS /FEIR to estimate the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS -Tustin that will locate withm CCD These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS Tustm to increase to 1 135 Alternative Method (E) This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the FEIS/FEIR with two modifications First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total number of jobs created by MCAS Tustin Second, it uses the 30 00 percent figure to estimate the number of new household creatcd by redevelopment of MCAS fustin that will locate within CCD These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS Tustin to increase to 2,270 t► • Mr Dana Ogdon January 16, 2001 Page l0 of 10 Conclusion In conclusion, the preceding analysis demonstrates that it is feasible to estimate the indirect impacts on the CCD of job creation at MCAS Tustin. Moreover such estimates can be prepared using a fairly standard estimation methodology By making reasonable modifications to the basic assumptions upon which the new household estimates set forth in the FEIS /FE1R are based, and combining these with the CCD s student enrollment rates, a more credible range of estimates emerges to better define the student generation impacts on CCD which will be caused by redevelopment of MCAS Tustin. "Best case" and 'worst case" scenarios of 303 to 2,270 students should be set forth in the FEIS /FEIR in Tight of the points discussed above. Sincerely yours, Public Economics, Inc. By a-, tom, Dante Gumucio Chief Executive Officer attachment • tXt lEiONOEcNlls:'ll\asn NY V.NVSVY •snsua3 0661 luau (%0E) Buy mous30 An3 300 mop waned ainwwoa paisnfpe salnlnsgns osle (3) po4)aly •SnsuO3 0661 ui0u (0.00£) ray mires for oiep walled ainwwoa euy glues paisnfpe (u) snld 'a8muaaiad wow :Coldwa loanp anuewallo (i) salnlpsgns osle (Q) poglaiN •nsuaJ 0661 wog ( %5'6),ClunoJ a8uei0103 clop walled ainwwoa cuy 0)1108 paisnfpe salnwsgns osle (3) pogialN 'snsua0 0661 wok; ( /o5 6) .14Uno3 amp 103 crop walled ainwwoa euy mueS paisnfpe (n) snld 'a8eivaaiad luaw,Coldwa laanp aanewalle (i) sawpisgns osle (g) poglayy U13d/5133 m strollnlncle., I po41aY0 011 wag papnpxa aiam 4vgm s)aedwi qof paanpumoanpui apnlaw (3) 48nolgi (V spoglaly OLVt SEI'1 61L 63£ £O£ Of 881 Z6E1'0 Z6E1 0 c6EI fl 16£1'0 Z6£1 'u 26E1 0 Z6E1 0 90£'91 E5I68 1,91 5 Z85'27 TLI'Z LIZ 05£'1 Lt 'Z Li' Z Lfl Lh ZZ Lt-77.. �� Lt— cc Lh'Z 009.9 10£'E 160'Z SPOT 088 88 Lt5 °,000 %00 'OE %05 6 %0S'6 %00'P °60O 1- %UU t 900'ZZ E00'II 900'ZZ £00'11 900`ZZ 961t 899'E1 %00'55 °1000'55 %00'5; %00 %00 55 !000 SS %00 55 010'01- 500`0Z 010'01- 500`0: 010'01' £66`£ 158.1-2 651'51 085'L 651'51 085'L 651'51 805'1 0 19'0 -19) 19'0 19'0 19'0 19 0 0r0 1 58'1-2 9ZP':1 1584tZ 9:1-'21 1581': 581-•Z 15861-Z %00 001 %00 05 °000 001 %00 OS %00 00 °.000 01 %00 001 158'•: 158'1-: 158'tZ 158.1-2 158•TZ 158'tZ 158'tZ IF Zk I# Zk I# VN VN Po PIN 10) P04191,y (3) po4)aN (9) po4lal^I (V) Po4ia1N Z- P0111.11 ‘1 1 f PO4)a1N nuwa4V a.weivalj' a,vlcwa1WV annewaiN awewally S13d /'2I3d 813d01131 .LJ V dIV I .LN30111S 'I V.LO.L QJOS?I a)eJ uouwaua0 luapn)S 10101 QJJSi1 uouelndod taffy aai,vas QJJSN leuou'PPV P10 sieaA 81 < plo4asnog lad uouelndod 1133 o8euues o4aueg atp ui ani7 04 patewus3 e Q33 downs o4auey a41 w am] 01 pai0wns3 % uuaw.Coldwg pappy 4Am pawioossy riiunoJ a2utuo ul Splottasnof ,yuno3 a8uOi0 m saaXoldw3 0l splo4asnoA Jo ontJ :(paanpul 7aanpul 7aanQ) lelol luawXoldw3 slaedwl luaw,Coldwg paanputpaanpul 'mamXoldw3 paanpul Fitly iaazpul io3 iatdnln1N Aluno0 aSuei0 01 malt' palewusg ,Clunoj a8uw0 01 maN palewus3 0A, :ays 0) poppy )uaw,oldwg :pogtayy SI3dRl13d 0) spuodsaiio0 poglayq amlewaily loeowl (alewpinl.L00QlIfig 101 suoaelnalc0 N9139 Paull/110 suouEDlppopV no paseg (3) put '(Q)'0) '(fl) '(y) Polpall' )3133/SI33 moil Zitt poylaIV put It/ polliaTV upsnI- SV3IAI Jo watudoianapag Aq anuisi [ a2atioD 1C lunwwoj o2rz utg ogaurH ao3 pa ;eiauao aq o; swapn;tg Teuomppv Jo aagwnN 2u9nupsa .Toj sai2olopoLpahr anpt uaally Jo L rtutuns i IIaIHXa • • EXHIBIT "D" lior RANCHO SANTIAA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Santa Ana College Santiago Canyon College January 16 2001 Mr Dana Ogden Senior Project Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 1 Re GEM 00 -001 FE /S /EEIR for Disposal and Reuse of IIICAS- Tustin Dear Mr Ogdon: 2323 North Broadway Santa Ma, California 92706 1640 (714) 480 -7300 I currently serve as the Executive Director of Research, Planning and Development for the Rancho Santiago Community College District ( "RSCCD "). I understand that, in the Agenda Report which has been prepared in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment No 00 -001 ( "GPA 00 -001 ') and the proposed certification of the Final EIS /EIR ( "FEIS /FEIR') for the disposal and reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station at Tustin, California ( "MCAS - Tustin) by the City Council of the City of Tustin (the 'City'), staff has concluded that there is no feasible way to evaluate the student generation impacts on RSCCD which will he caused by the build-out of the City s Reuse Plan for MCAS - Tustin. As the person principally in charge at RSCCD for estimating growth in student enrollment, 1 believe that it is, in fact, possible to estimate the range of full -time (Le. credit) students that will he added to the RSCCD system by the City s Reuse Mao. For example, by utilizing the methodologies employed in the May 1999 report prepared by the City s consultant, Dennis Macheski Consulting ( "DMC'), I have prepared a spreadsheet (see enclosed) showing that, depending on which methodology is used, between 302 and 2,266 additional students could be generated for RSCCD as a result of the redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin The DMC analysis follows a series of estimates from employment added to site to `SAUSD's student generation ratio per household. I have modified and augmented the DMC methodologies to address the RSCCD population and enrollment specifically I used population and enrollment projection conventions typically used by California community college statisticians and by our Research Department. Based on these calculations, it is apparent that the build -out of the City s Reuse Plan for MCAS - Tustin will further exacerbate our facilities shortage by adding new students that we do not have the space to accommodate. Considering the limited amount of land that our community college district currently owns, the current status of classroom overcrowding, and future enrollments expected, the additional community college students that may be generated by MCAS - Tustin redevelopment, would become extremely problematic. As noted in Santa Ana College s Facilities Master Plan/A Report by President s Facilities Ad Hoc Committee, Draft 1 November 30 2000. Board of Trustees Brian E Conley, M A John R. Hanna, 1D Lawrence R "Larry Labrado Michael N OrteII, J D Enriqueta 1- Ramos, PhD Lisa Woolery Phillip E Yarbrough Edward Hernandez Jr Ed D Chancellor • • With 56 acres and 20,000 full time equivalent students (FTES), Santa Ana College [SAC] is the third smallest in size and the sixth largest in enrollment out of the 107 community colleges in the State. • Based on Fall 99 -00 headcount, SAC enrollment is greater than every campus of the California Stale University and the University of California. • Prior to 1995, there were no relocatahle buildings in campus. In the past five years, 22 portable facilities have been brought to campus. There are now as many relocatahle /portable buildings as there are permanent buildings on campus. In addition to the problems noted above, we expect to soon experience huge increases in enrollments from what many refer to as Tidal Wave Two given that the enrollments in our K- 12 Unified Districts are swelling. In fact, by the year 2005 the RSCCD will qualify according to California Community College Board of Governors standards, for 26.000 square feet of additional laboratory space and 18,000 square feet of additional office space. (This was calculated from the RSCCD 2001 Five Year Plan submitted to the California Community College Chancellor s Office in February 2000 ) For these reasons. we have been attempting to acquire additional land, and it had been our hope that the City s Reuse Plan could be modified to accommodate us in this regard by recommending that surplus federal land at MCAS= Tustin be conveyed to us in conjunction with one or more land transfers to also meet the needs of the Santa Ana Unified School District. Very truly yours, Julie Slark, Executive Director Research, Planning, and Development Enc. 00 /Zl luaw)Jeda0 q ieasaa ODD521 (OSf1Vs o1 anpelaJ) ODDS2i 10 azts leptydeJSoa5 JaleaJS o1 anp laodaJ leutSuo woJ; paseaJout siaqwnu pue salea 99Z'Z 4S6 211 ZO£ 081. L L64 4LE LS SZLO'0 SZLO 0 SZLO 0 SZLO'O 9801 L54 PPE 54l L990'0 L990 0 L990'0 L990'0 • SLZ'9L Z98`9 ZS S LLl'Z L4'Z L4'Z L47 L4'Z 68S 9 4LL`Z 980'Z 6L2 %0'0E %0'0E %S 6 %S 6 Z96 1.Z 84Z'6 Z96 LZ 84Z'6 SS'0 SS'0 SS 0 SS'0 ZE6 6E S t 8 9L ZE6 6E 5L8'9l L80 St OSE'9 L80 SL OSE`9 L9'0 l9 0 L9'0 L9 0 • LS8 4Z S9P'0 LS8`4Z S94`0 L °%00'001 %L L'Z4 %00 001 %L L'Z4 LS8 4Z l58'4Z LS8 4Z LS8 4Z 14) PoypaW 1E) PoglaW (Z) Poy1aw 0,) pap aW anpewal)y anpewallW anpewally anpewallV luawliedao gDJeasab O33S2i /q paluawSny `(6661 Aew) 1Joday 8up)nsuo3 pisayoew stuuau woJ3 uaslel satSolopoylaW papala5 141011DVdWI 1N30118 ODDS21 (1e101-qns) uopeJaua0 luapnis uopeonp3 11np/ 033521 awl; luawnau3 uopeonp3 11iPV 033521 (lelol•gns) uopeJaua3 luapnlS ltpaJ3 a8a11o3 O33S21 alea luawnoiu3 ltpaJ3 aSano3 033s21 uopelndod easy aDLAJaS O33SH leuoplppV p)oyasnoH Jad P10 steaA 8 t < uopelndod ilouls10 abano3 Lltunwwo3 oSepues oyoueb aq; ut anp o1 palewps3 # pulsto aSano3 Lltunwwo3 °Segues oyoueb ayl ut anp of palewps3 % :luawloldw3 pappy y)tM palepossy Aluno3 a8ueu0 ut sployasnoH .11uno3 abueJ0 ut saaAoldw3 of sployasnoH ;o otle1 :(paonpul `paJtpul 'patio) lelol luaw/oldw3 :spedwl luawlo)dw3 paonpul /panpu :luawAo)dw3 paDnpui pue paitpui Jo; aandpinw .Aluno3 aSueJO o1 MaN palewps3 # .Aluno3 a8ueJ0 01 MaN palewps3 % :ails of pappy luawloldw3 pedw (alewPln) _waning J0; suope)nD)e3 ;o uopeoydno upsnl •Sy3W ;o luawdolanapay Aq 033521 uo; paleuaua0 aq of sluapnls leuoptppy ;o JagwnN 5upewps3 uo; satbolopoylaW anpeuaaljy Jnod to tiewwn5 • • EXHIBIT "E" 'my °pour. eon 11MSwDn0 lnye laoddns qel c3elt pros selepo99p Due uell9va :awnog eouvlue ulew uol7Wlslu?Wpy (Rolouyoel pue eoueloS'nt' eyl lo; leivej uopeAeuul 1911310) 1sv3 •10 peggnp ueeq sey eluao ey1 q bsstirs 80013 aNno8o uoddns leuenevip3 (ioou punoa9 uonv)tluiwpq 01 undo) poddn9 leuoileonp3 'bs 9LS'9Z 80013 ON003S 'panmdd2 SI ueld 1DJAS10 a2aIIo0 falunwwo0'fauna: aeueap y1noS e A LEolouypal pue apualps 'sin ;t no; gny,;do; - anenbs- gtL40L a awo3aq hew uope1S 11V sdno0 auyetq ullsnl aunt; awl le nePuey aaldooltay v 1':..1.6 1i Tea qnH goai-ON O. aeueH woad Sg'iUVONVH aas aseeld -On pue ssautsnq ;o ueap s,lota1S1p ay7 'pnaaPaag e-I1eI11 pies LSvO -Ia le aDT;Jo Pututcn lseoo Ise\ slt ysygelsa 01 sadoy .uedwoo suoq - rotunwwo3ata7 ayw at2uey ayl 07 aotlua o7 sadoy 7pulstp ay' sawed -woo ay17o auo lsnf st eloaolol'I .spaau a)etpaww; ray) laaw 1E47 sale gl1e; Pututen qix pue uopeanpa ;0e'7uo1 glue. way. .Iddns 01 sat; - iunwwop ssautsnq Ieool ay; y7Lr. LIa.')oe >lao.r, ax. puy 'padota. -ap ate ley; sat2otouylal ay; .ldce 01 aidoad ute1 am aaau.r. s 1I, ptes uosdweS ';Iaed XPolouyoal payd -de ue se ut;snw ;o 1utyl spaayaaM uo ao ,g2tu 7e Cpsow '581:1 xaa.r: a. ut 1g2ne7 sdegaad s2uua;;o airs- uotsaaw -wl ')aoys aq o1 sassep ;sow s)pad xa ay ptes loa(oad ay1 ;o 921ey3 u! aollaoueylalt, e'uunp000uoQ sa;uedwoo 10; sassep yoea) of lOenuo0 itt.n saSallol nitunwwoo a41 'sawe2sut aaylo tsucyssaroid a2ueyo 01 ao sqof atagp u} men -pr o7 Putuiri; 'uotleot;ilaao paau oym sluapnls aapio paeMol papal -tp aq iltM Sassep 'amyl L'ltleaa [unlit, put sotldo last} 'uot7ewtue se stale qoa) -42iy Bons u} sluap -rips Putyoeal 'gDeoadde te1 }bead e uo sueid LSy3 -IQ lug'ypaeasel uo sun; ptnoa loafoad aettwts e But Pielaapun f.7}saantun aeaX -ano; y •wars, :s 0atioa 6;tunwwop apt.r.alels ay1 not etpaw mau ;o aoloaaip'uetxe. y uyof pies 'asp aaaymeue lstxa l,usaop lsowte ley: aoua2aa..uoo ;o L`O5S1. E St aaer. -paey pue aaeml;os aleansuowap o7 satuedwoo 10; aotjd E put'saaatao.n ;o a2tlaoys E ypn .ialsnput ue ao; Pututen 's ; ;owds ssautsnq Putpt, •oad aayla2ol satuEdwoo pue saos -sapid 'swap= Puuq lttM slueual asaantp ay7 ;day steipi;io 1pinsia •aseq aupuTAI upsn j lam o; aqa uo am:Dnz }s a2nq ut yz>?d ,c2ojoutpa1 pagddr ur ppnq m swum. apps?p a3apop 'uavelaapun sew gpta7s;p °to loafoad snotltgwe lsow awl St— ,LSVO -IQ se UMOu5t —tCPO •touypaL pue aovatps 'shy ay1 io; aa1ua0 uout.,ouul ienSla 841 Pees uosdweS 0upa0 aopapuey0 lauaa2u1 ayl etn paXeiaa elep woa; aaate3 ieotnaap 2utsou2etp a0; qnq jegot2 e apniaut ua..a ptnoM 1I 'etuao;tlej uaaginoS ul a2ayoo nliunwwoo AU! .10J sump It'll ay; 02 aolegnlut ssawsnq e o1 a2els punos e woa; Putylsana y7im aa)ua' Putuleai ten tp spoil -nun ue owl ae2uEy aa)dopgaq e um; 01 sueid ypn 'aster autleyq ut7 -snj aawao; ay; ;o °paid e w;ep 07 do Putuil s} lotalsta a,Sapoo agmnw -wok F,7uno0 a2cea0 grog ayj asaiam divas S3 V411 g3y1.LL00 Ear X3 .zEfuBH .zoo suEid qaaI4jqi 00 /W00'S3 W Iltll'hlhhhl 53a112 sotoVut 005 •ways lo; ymm o1 sluapnls 2uu1y pue raam pray :Jana a&e1s punos ay1 8uuual 311011 onpoad jejOlawwoD 4;1.3'31211 alp Jo :soul n asn jpm sluapnls sfes'uotsslwwo3 Wj13 811003 a2uea0 a41 uo 3113 04A■ aualgln '.11(1301 941 2111131 111 3Sala: passaldxa 3.04 .ausia pue 923 'lunow -eyed pies 'gel 32013 punos uononp01C9i2- ay1 I0 loloaltp a4 111 04M aaOnpold sy�g eun2e7 0 'a1:al41 1113 'sanb111yoal le' tip asn ,12111s03:3u1 op. s13yewwir.1e1D10ww03 pue sluapnls -q pasn aq pinch 10141 a2els punos 1o0- alenbs- 00016t ue 41. dn uare- s lesoccad :e2uey ay7 Jo uoiaod 221E1 v 'ullop 0 yitn e:11103110p ulayir'os w Duo .luo 941 7t 2ui110w pile 'alms ay7 w 3231103 .liunwwoo :ue 11041 21113004 ii.apn tl ls glow saw a•,q sndweo ay; Sul. t2 313n11su07 24 lit, ,loliwlop paq -000' i v 68utlaout8ug swalsXS Iey2I310; 1011133 s 2101113111 041 10 loloaltp '31313 we5 pies giuewnl3 lot aul3ipap, y' p3.40. -u, awo0aq o1 sadou os(0 '31015 0111(0103 g7aoN pue 0111(0103 1411o61 ;o '11saa..1u1-1 ay7 '2.1(na 2uowe :3afold lutof e '0111(0303 4114; u( a:rimsul aj2ueily 431e3s31I 3y1, 133131111 passaldxa soy osle um:ayn is a :05 103 pue •welSold ay: 1.. 33..10.,12 aq 1(000: pue map, 8111s1n11 s a2apoD a1 y 'pies 21041133/3 ley; op 01 gnu 121scy ay: 7e giunlloddo tn;lapuorc. sty; 9..811 a. ,111111 a: pue 131113203 110 11 21:,14 111e• a :no stye 10 saoatd pue spa al111[ op aidoa3, seam avowal L't 3107003 103 suo1181lnsuo, 1003•(;, 3110 Sau;uno3 3utdola..ap ut s.uaped 1301183 101 1311311u ay7 13 „0 2uilasunco 2utp:.old 411Fologoi.sdaial apnl7u: s11o1103(ldde 1ay70 '1caw18311 110 apiDap o7 0111110 ±04102 p15103 51181313 ud aaalunlo, 3o dnol2 0 pue'uoilen(e..a 10( 4+111003 a2ue13 111 gnu 3 dnol2 ay: o: 1311131 1 241 l2 „0 1333 pue pe:1112n pue pauueos 94 pjno. p1180e4y 11'1 112.•0' .sdotq e we:2olo s 101200 10: auioipay1 .3p11 •3110133110).233;0 coisdotq op pue uawo. a11iwexa 0: %.our; s3..1..p:w pue 3.2j83 1euoi11pe1 33S:0U 1wwl0p 43E2' u' 31283: peas pino. 1118wng :o: aui3ipap 'puel:eyy 11. a301d aye: Pino: we12o :d ayy nlloddo aw13 210 e 102 a. a „ aut31Paw (0110(1811131111 ut /ep m3u 3(044, e Jo 3030; 341 84 pjnoD 4111003 3211013 '8103 41(034 (e110n - 011131111 111 33103 11..014 -1303 e 211134 01 sawtp put, sja33lu pue sa!uuad 103 2ui22aq wo- rn 321(01 lapuno3o3 s dno18 ay; '2104112213 ,134011 1Q pies "UoilEUOp mop UOiljlwrjnal 'djay s dnol5 341 lo: pa1(se 3404 sat 1uno3 :no; 10/ '0110013 pue 311010/ uelslyagen '0311; 4'nos '0DU3p1'sawddgtgd au iedaN1'8408110(41 01 sWEal je3jpaw 1113_ sea •p03..je pue u00'00IS 10040 30:a2pnq (8011118 ue seu .l'1Ownll 103 aui3ipap ;Lull ;e [4301 ,op] paw .ue .84 uo4 7snf 3,,i 'p:es lassa1873uu3s dial{ autos ap1.,3ad qta•, a. pool 910 sa3ueu'3 a4j, 1834 ay - 10 pun 341 .4 /1131211121203 311 uo api7ap 01 .uedwo: 347 slaw, 0221102 3111 pm° p'h 1131181 \1 w S1j10 qan u011812ua5 7xrp, 111230"I 10 1o133:1p 1233212; 1479 2,.8n• ,300 Ilnd .ew ,uedwoo ay: lea. 1301 au: 111 91045 e LIc 1004e o• ('9 12013 (12(4 01 sea :3015 1113301 3300334 105 '404 31113(P312pi31 34- 103 ,ua.udinba Jo 411o: 11041112 3.c Zg•-3•IQ pure 2utu(0111oyuo4(tw 0g 6ltuewng 103 auto -(pap; 3032 01 paaa8e peq ija.a701ua1 sai2ojou -4334 1113301 pies 30122135 pue 11tmpo00 'dno12 au: 1.012i 11,103, fsluno3 341 u( 313t2olo3uo 012o(03au.2 33130 41x13 e 1nogn+ 'pllorc. padoja..aplapun 341 pue •9'11 341 10 30310 3101231 w ±331183 (031.,133142(3 dial{ 01 1311121W 34; asn 3118 531111307 ZSV0•I61 olui .011.' pinorc. 131.' 11ueW0H 10; au13 •1p3p dnoln Ono :duou 0110 1Stde3 uenj' Iles ay, 33..111 .w 1oafold snor;lgwe 130111 344 aoddns a :1o; :i1om paau 1041 pue 3o a8elue,.pe axe': 1103 at .13130(7 :2o -pupal 10w ,11812 os sea .1un03 a2u010 asn83a0 'pies au 'opelojo3 ut pip at 1014. 1184' 138101 43011 31 3124 (01111910d 344, opeaolo3 3o se2allo3 .1120121203 341 30 1311133 ;20 -pupa" pub uo1183np3 1242(H ay7 0111( 12: -1133 10311 3305 3310/ 11 :40.0-1 :0 uois1a. - 11031ejiWIS 0 '.0513.,0 o4. 'uu:,poop pang 11 6661 134wa1d39 uJ'o2e 5103. j01a..as aseq unsny 21:1 am. 8urcueld 110894 131113(3 ayy •sassautsnq 0112 seam Ills: o: ,nunaoddo ue 312330,3 24: rid I11. 1.14. 10100,0311, 341 >pod /0(0'J9791 p211dde ue 101 52114130! aplAOld &W 3920 aupe1 11111901 pasop 241 sawilsata9uv a•1 / :5513: 100 103 1311f fauoul IelapaJ ut uoyjlw•s•I$ 13410 -118 3410331 01 sl7adxa a we /101sty 13(11 -sip ut W012 1522101 341 inroad 341103 sIeaX om1 1300 111012 31013 uotytw -Z$ e pan(a3 al 384 13111313 3231103 .1120121203 343 'pies slet3B30 3821100 1S"3•I3 01 sl vanillawo3 311012 01 1110130(31 311011e 100107 awns ;pew sea 3300, 311:10(+; 341 19.,0 dnpjo4 343 lie: 3141 sasse(3101 F.pea± aq o1 3404 11U,‘ 1211193 341 '3110113111031 111812 13312 0l{ 13a101d 941 301 lUawdoianap pue 21111011 '110(103033 301o13311p03 110.3313 .13404 pies 'saauenbpea4 .181odwal put; 01 3.,04 ID. 191?3.1G '341uo12 ano; 1114:1.0 .11ado1d � 241 01 21111 2..12321 1,115303 10!1/Sip 341 2 Supuoyli t' Ut4 TM papaaN aPLL purl 3801s punos 241 103 7ods 13410110 put 01 3404 3100•+ ,ayy '11101133d5 9111„13 341 10 11011819 11q 3d103 auuel't 0104 (3 1312101 a4. 1e 10 r3j(0,r1 311(4 lI pue 11ae4alppes 'sasndweD 0.111 s )31113ip 341 110 j,S ^3 -IQ 101 lod3.13410ue puns 11ea ,341 /..e3 13:3310 341 1e 31013430 '3110( 311i1ep ay' 122 usaop 1uno3 3211810 41009 •I •31021124 131dc31191± 1001 pub 1021104 d•wyq 0: sea 4o1u. 'as24 3132 -00i .µ031.1 314' to saoaid ac: ens o1 2111ualealu' ale 1711121(1 3231103 1111012W03 022171103 04311eE 341 pue 13111510 (0oy35 paiilun EU' titres 2p '11131233933e 311311211d0 ue 34 4421W 7843. •1124. 104 'pan au+132 .a141 100134. 1011 51 11011330b 3111 '5131.11 310131110131111i0' or, ter pue( 10 Days 3130.96 11;a 101 11103 01(810113111 -sip ail pal3adxa 343 pies pnaa8lag '47uou1 1521 L13i173lp 32311113 gw012w0 : 241 01 punt ay' 12..3 11101 .EN ay7 111' ua4„ \ yesodold au: 1.3..0 321184 uollsanb 71O11odu:1 uE 105 'pies ay ' .113npul .110 a 33101.1(10: E p3811 no, ayq 4301 3312010:14ca1 .r.au pue uaw dola..ap 8133121,1012 111 p9111e11 s 1041 03.01 1(10411 e paau no, •3afo1d 34- papneldde 110110.,0114 10 1210 -o: 131093 s " 311 :o 101092p a•r:JOsso 1103.:3:3/ 313x101 31 12:10 11319. 1113 010101010 0301 710711(191311311 au 3:101 01 p3:,0( -10 30, p00. 31119n015 11011230p3 (21101103 TII wo11 panui 003 aseq aupETAI Ja .U®J J® Affi L,J swam afaiioj : >JvD'z •NNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIIr.P ATTORNEYS AT LAW EDMOND M. CONNOR LAURA LEE WARE CRAIG L. GRIFFIN DAVID J. I I ESSE.LTIN E. MATTHEW J. FLETCIIF.R Mr Dana Ogdon Senior Project Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 2600 MICTIELSON DRIVE Sung 1450 IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92612 TELEPHONE (949) 622 -2600 TELEFACSIMILE (949) 622 2626 E- DIME. cconnor ©6usinesslit.com November 28 2000 VIA MESSENGER Re: Objections to Adequacy of FEIS /FEIR for General Plan Amendment 00 -001 Re Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station — Tustin, California Dear Mr Ogdon: We are the attorneys for Santa Ana Unified School District (the `SAUSD "), the Rancho Santiago Community College District (the `RSCCD "), Victor and Susan Garcia (the 'Garcias "), Fourtino and Bertha Rivera (the "Riveras"), and Karina Valenzuela [hereinafter SAUSD and RSCCD shall collectively be referred to as the `Districts') and the Districts, the Garcias, the Riveras, and Ms. Valenzuela shall collectively be referred to as the `Concerned Parties']. We understand that, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of the Navy (the `Navy "), the City of Tustin (the "City ") is currently reviewing the `Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter, `FEIS /FEIR ") for the disposal and reuse of the Marine Air Corps Air Station at Tustin, California ( "MCAS- Tustin "). We further understand that the City intends to use the FEIS /FEIR as the environmental documentation to support its proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment 00 -001 (hereinafter referred to as the `Project "). On behalf of each of the Concerned Parties, we submit the following objections to the adequacy of the FEIS /FEIR. (1) in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") and the State CEQA Guidelines (the "CEQA Guidelines" or the `Guidelines'), including, but not limited to, section 15126.2 of the Guidelines, the FEIS /FEIR fails to adequately address the significant environmental effects and growth- inducing impacts which the Project will have on, inter alia, socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana; RSCCD \MCAS -L andTmsfr \Ogdon.doc .CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LL • Dana Ogdon November 28, 2000 Page 2 (2) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section 15126.4 of the Guidelines, the FEIS/FEIR fails to describe all feasible mitigation measures to minimize the significant environmental effects and growth- inducing impacts which the Project will have on, inter alio, socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana; (3) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section 15126 6 of the Guidelines, the FEIS /FEIR fails to discuss all reasonable project alternatives which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects and growth- inducing impacts which the Project will have on, inter alia, socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana; (4) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section 15130 of the Guidelines, the FEIS /FEIR fails to discuss the cumulative impacts which the Project will have on, inter alia, socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana; (5) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section 15131 of the Guidelines, the FEIS /FEIR fails to adequately identify and analyze the economic and social effects with the Project will have on persons residing in the City of Santa Ana, particularly with respect to public services and facilities; (6) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, sections 15091 15092, and 15093 of the Guidelines, the proposed Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project and the FEIS/FEIR fail to adequate address the significant impacts, reasonable project alternatives, and feasible mitigation measures for the Project, as more particularly described in the preceding subparagraphs; (7) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section 15097 of the Guidelines, the Mitigation Monitoring Program with the City proposes to adopt in connection with the Project fails to incorporate adequate mitigation measures and is legally deficient for the reasons set for in the preceding subparagraphs. In addition to the foregoing objections, each of the Concerned Parties also incorporates by reference, as though set forth in full hereat, each of the comments and R S CC D \M CA S- L a n dT m s fA Engagement • CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LL • Dana Ogdon November 28, 2000 Page 3 objections set forth in the three letters which SAUSD previously submitted to the City of Tustin (the `City') relating to the FEIS/FEIR (or to the Draft EIS/EIR), dated March 2, 1998, August 23 1999, and May 19, 2000. Likewise, each of the Concerned Parties incorporates by reference, as though set forth in full hereat, each of the oral or written comments, objections, or contentions regarding the FEIS /FEIR (or the Draft EIS /EIS) which have been, or will be, submitted to your Department, or to the City by any other persons or entities, prior to or at the time of any of the public hearings which the City conducts before approving the Project. To be placed in the proper context, this letter must be read in conjunction with (I) the letter dated November 24 2000 (the `November 24 Letter '), which I sent to Mr William Cassidy Jr of the Navy on behalf of each of the Concerned Parties and (2) the letter dated November 28, 2000 (the `November 28 Letter "), which 1 transmitted to Mr Cassidy earlier today Copies of both these letters are attached hereto for your reference and each of them is incorporated herein as if set forth in full hereat. In the November 24 Letter a number of objections to the City's Reuse Plan (i.e. the Project) were raised under (1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( "Title VI ") and (2) the regulations of the Department of Defense regarding "Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs." The November 24 Letter and the November 28 Letter both contained a great deal of statistical information relevant to the matters discussed in those letters, but, to avoid unnecessary duplication, that information will not be restated in full here. The basic thrust of this letter is that the FEIS/FEIR has failed to adequately analyze- -and to attempt to lessen or avoid- -the impacts which the Project will have on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana. In general, it is the position of the Concerned Parties that the FEIS/FEIR has grossly underestimated these impacts as a result of among other things, (1) the flawed analysis in the FEIS /FEIR as to the number of students that will be added to the already overcrowded public schools in the SAUSD when the Project is developed and (2) the lack of any analysis in the FEIS/FEIR as to the number of credit and non - credit students that will be added to the community college facilities operated by the RSCCD as a result of the City s Reuse Plan. Of course, not only does the FEIS/FEIR fail to adequately address the impacts which the Project will have on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana, particularly the public schools and community college facilities, but it also fails to provide adequate mitigation measures to minimize those impacts, including, but not limited to, the most obvious mitigation measure of transferring an R SCCD\MCA S- l.andTm sfr \Engagement • CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LL• Dana Ogdon November 28 2000 Page 4 adequate amount of surplus federal land at MCAS -Tustin to SAUSD and RSCCD so that those Distncts could construct new facilities to help ease the overcrowding problems which they currently face In addition to failing to specify adequate mitigation measures to alleviate the Project's impacts on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in Santa Ana, the FEIS/FEIR also fails to discuss any reasonable project alternatives that would reduce or eliminate these impacts by allowing SAUSD and RSCCD to obtain surplus land 'it MCAS - Tustin to build new facilities Not a single one of the reuse alternatives discussed in the FEIS/FEIR contemplates the conveyance of surplus land to all five educational distncts whose boundaries cover portions of MCAS - Tustin, i e , SAUSD, RSCCD, the Irvine Unified School District ( "IUSD ") the Tustin Unified School Distnct (` rUSD "), and the South Orange County Community College District ( "SOCCCD ") Regrettibly, the alternatives discussed in the FEIS /FEIR only contemplate surplus land transfers to IUSD, TUSD, and SOCCCD The City s decision to exclude SAUSD and RSCCD from receiving any land transfers at MCAS Fustin not only raises rifle Vi concerns as explained in the November 24 Letter, but it also has environmental imphcations to the extent that the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequately explore ways to avoid Project impacts on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in Santa Ana On behalf of each of the Concerned Parties, we respectfully request that the City withhold its approval of the FEIS/FEIR until each of the serious legal deficiencies noted above has been corrected and a new environmental document has been recirculated for public review and comment in accordance with section 15088 5 of the CEQA Guidelines zyyo: s, nnor RSCCDAMCAS LandTmsfr \Engagement • December 18, 2000 • OF CULBERTSON, ADAMS &ASSOCIATES PLANNING CONSULTANTS City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 3767 SUBJECT GPA 00 001 Failure to Adequately Disclose Significant Impacts in FEIS/FEIR on Base Disposal and Reuse of Marne Corps Air Station, Tustin California, Failure to Identify Feasible Mitigation Measures and Project Alternatives Honorable Council Members This office represents Santa Ana Unified School Distract (heremafter "SAUSD ") m preparing environmental documentation for school facilities, and has for over 10 years The signatory to this letter is no stranger to the California Environmental Quality Act (` CEQA "), having admmisteted, written or critiqued over 500 documents in the last 27+ years Some of the more controversial projects m Orange County have been addressed by the undersigned to the satisfaction of reviewing courts My professional commitment to complete, unbiased and accurate admimstratron of CEQA has been a hallmark of my work The SAUSD has recently requested that we (1) review the record so far established for the Final EIS/E1R ( "FEIS /FEIR') and detemmne if there has been full and accurate compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines and (2) respond to the staffs CEQA related comments set forth in Attaclunent 5 to the Agenda Report which has been prepared by the Redevelopment Agency staff in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment No 00- 001 ( "GPA 00 001 ") and the certification of the FEIS/FEIR by the City Council of the City of Tustin (the "City") at the public heanag scheduled for December 18 2000 Please note that the Agenda Report was only obtained from the City by SAUSD's counsel Connor Blake & Griffin LLP, last Fnday afternoon, December 15, 2000, and was forwarded to me for my review on Friday evening As such, my office has had little time to fully analyze and respond to the many new points raised by staff in its response to the wntten comments which SAUSD's counsel submitted to the City's Planning Commission in connection with the public hearing on GPA 00 001 which was held November 28, 2000 85 Argonaut Suitt 220, Also Viejo Ca6forma 92656 4105 • (949) 581 2888 fax (949) 581 3799 • s • City Council City of Tustin December 18, 2000 Page 2 However, notwithstanding the severe time limitations with which ray office had to contend over the past weekend, our review of the record has sufficed to demonstrate that the CEQA compliance process for GPA 00 001 is seriously flawed and must be matenally revised before the City Council can legally proceed to approve that project The reason to address the City Council at this late point m the process is to make one last attempt — in a direct fashion — to alert the City Council to major errors in the CEQA process Whatever the reasons ostensibly compelling the City Council to move forward at this point, the City Council alone is responsible for determining the adequacy of this CEQA process, and the mitigation which (or which does not in the case of Santa Ana Unified School District), attend it As a frequent representative of public agencies and school distnets we find ourselves obligated to point out these problems — and their solutions — to the City Council directly Failure to Adequately Disclose Sianrfcant Impacts to SAUSD School System The FEIS(FEIR concedes that under the City's preferred alternative, referred to as Alternative 1," up to 509 new students would be Indirectly generated for the SAUSD school system as a result of the tens of thousands of new jobs that would be created by the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin (FEIS /FE1R, at pp 4 61 to 4 -64) According to the FEIS/FEIR the build -out of Alternative 1 could result in `indirect or induced growth" which would add up to 547 new households within SAUSD's junsdiction as new employees moved into the Santa Ana area to fill some of the new fobs created at MCAS Tustin (Id) For the reasons stated below, the failure of the FEIS/FEIR to adequately Identify the student generation impacts associated with the development of Alternative 1 as "significant environmental effects" under CEQA and to specify feasible mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate these impacts is a clear cut violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines In addition, the City's apparent refusal to adopt the appropnate findings, a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation momtonng report to properly address these impacts likewise runs afoul of the mandatory provisions of CEQA and the Guidelines Sections 15126 and 15126 2 of the CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to identify all "significant environmental effects of the proposed project ' In this regard EIRs must discuss changes induced m population distribution population concentration the human use of the land and other aspects of the resource base such as public services' (Emphasis added) Of course, in this context the term `public services" would include public schools within the SAUSD school system SAUSDAScbool Impacts letter • • City Council City of Tustin December 18, 2000 Page 3 In detenninmg whether the student generation impacts on SAUSD which would be associated with the redevelopment of MCAS Tustin should be deemed `significant" within the meaning of CEQA and would require adequate mitigation, the provisions of Section 15064(e) of the CEQA Guidelines are quite instructive and appear to address the very school overcrowding problems which will be exacerbated by the City's Reuse Plan for MCA S Tustin "Alternatively, economic and social effects of a physical change maybe used to determine that the physical change is a significant effect on the environment If the physical change causes adverse economic or social effects on people those adverse effects may be used as a factor in determining whether the physical change is significant For example . if a project would cause overcrowding ofa public facility and the overcrowding causes an adverse effect on people, the overcrowding would be regarded as a significant effect " (Emphasis added ) Although school overcrowding, standing alone, may not, in every instance, constitute a significant environmental effect" within the meaning of CEQA the California courts have held that when a proposed project would add additional students to an already overcrowded school distnct thereby necessitating the construction of new school facilities and possibly changing bus routes and altenng traffic patterns -to accommodate the influx of such new students, these student generation impacts would be considered "significant" under CEQA and would require adequate mitigation (See, e.g, Goleta Union School Dist v Regents of University of California (1995) 37 Cal App.4th 1025 1032 El Dorado Union High School Dist v City of Placerville (1983) 144 Cal App 3d 123 131 132 ) In the Goleta Union case, the tnal court found that the EIR initially prepared by the Regents violated CEQA because it failed to provide relevant information and adequate mitigation measures regarding the significant environmental impacts which the Regents' plan to expand the University of California at Santa Barbara ( "UCSB ") might have on student enrollment in the schools run by the Goleta Union School Distract (the "District ") Specifically, the mal court found that, because of severe overcrowding of the Districts' classrooms the additional students that would be generated by the expansion of UCSB would eventually necessitate construction of new classroom facilities or additional busing of students The Supplemental EIR which the tnal court required the Regents to prepare after making this finding reported that the cumulative effect of the Regents' expansion plan would involve an increase of 192 new students in the District The Court of Appeal in the Goleta Union case agreed that, based upon the teal court's findings, this projected increase in student enrollment was a significant effect which SAUSD\Scbool Impacts !slier 12/18/2000 12 57 949581"'98 • City Council City of Tustin December 18, 2000 Page 4 c AUDI CULBERTSOH • PAGE 05 required appropriate mitigation measures to be specified an the Supplemental EIR in order to comply with the dictates of CEQA Likewise, in the El Dorado Union case the Court of Appeal affirmed the teal court's ruling that the City's EIR fell `woefully short" of the requirements imposed by CEQA because (1) it did not adequately address of the effects of adding 883 new high school students to an already overcrowded school system and (2) it failed to specify any mitigation measures to minimize those impacts In contrast to the 192 additional students in the Goleta Union case and the 88.3 additional students in the El Dorado Union case both of which were deemed to be "significant impacts requiring proper CEQA compliance the FEIS(FEIR in this case estimates that up to 509 new students for the SAUSD school system could be generated by the build out of the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS- Tustin Inexplicably, however, the FEJS/FEIR fails to identify this student generation impact as significant and likewise fails to specify any mitigation measures other than a beef reference to developer fees to minimize this impact Prior letters submitted on behalf of SAUSD have clearly demonstrated that SAUSD is expenenemg severe overcrowding problems and is in desperate need of additional school facilities to handle some 24 000 students who are temporarily housed in "portable classrooms Obviously, adding over 500 new students to an already overcrowded and over - capacity school system will necessitate the construction of new classroom facilities to accommodate these new students because there is no excess capacity to absorb these students Moreover, depending on where these new students reside within SAUSD's boundaries their transportation needs to and from Their respective schools may necessitate changing existing school bus routes and altering traffic patterns within the Santa Ana area Each of these impacts needs to be adequately addressed and mitigated in the FEJSh tIR before the City proceeds to approve GPA 00 001 What is imperative to note here is that, when the FEIS(hEAR is read in conjunction with the staff comments set forth an the Agenda Report regarding GPA 00 001 tt is apparent that the City, itself, has provided the evidence necessary to establish that the student generation impacts of its Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin are so "significant" that, at a minimum, an entire new grade school will need to be built to handle the influx of the hundreds of new students that will be added to the SAUSD school system At page 9 of the `Response to Written Comments" section of the Agenda Report, the staff makes the following observations "The FEIS/FEIR states only that based on the assumption that perhaps new employees at the former MCAS Tustin site might seek new housing within the SAUSD, there is the potential for an indirect impact an the SAUSD from the MCAS Tustin project To bracket the range of probable indirect impacts, the SAUSD\School Impacts letter • s • City Council City of Tustin December 18 2000 Page 5 City s experts presented an estimate using two scenarios Bse)tli scenario 1, a highly unlikely worst -case scenario, and scenario 2, the more likely scenario, were prepared far the FEIS /FEIR Based on the projections under each scenario of household growth, either 509 students might be generated over a 20 year period (scenario 1) or 82 students (scenario 2) over the same period Based on SAUSD student generation information, 78% of any indirect potential impact to SAUSD would be in grades K 8 with over 50% of this impact in grades K 5 (under either scenano) With an avera e K 5 elementary school built to accommodate 800 students, the average middle school built to accommodate 1560 students and the average high school built to accommodate 2400 students neither of the mdirect impact scenarios examined substantiates allocation of an entire school site at MCAS Tustin as requested by the SAUSD " (Emphasis added ) The clear implication of the above quoted passage from the Agenda Report for GPA 00 001 is that, if either of the ` indirect impact scenarios" discussed m the FEIS/FEIR indicated that at least 800 new students would be generated for the SAUSD school system by the redevelopment of MCAS Tustin, then the City would have to agree that such an impact would be significant and would require `an entire school site at MCAS Tustin" to be provided as mitigation By carefully scrutinizing the calculations performed by the City's consultant in projecting the 509 additional students under "scenario 1" discussed in the FEIS/FEIR, it turns out that, idler accounting for an unjustified omission which was made in the calculations performed by the City s consultant the actual number of students that would be generated under `scenario 1" would be 817 new students This, of course, would be well above the City's 800 - student threshold which, by the way, has no basis in CEQA law -for establishing a significant impact requiring mitigation In the May 1999 report entitled "Updated Report on the School Facility Indirect Impact of Redevelopment on the MCAS Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Ana Unified School District, which was prepared at the City's request by Dennis Macheski Consulting (DMC ") and which forms the basis of the indirect student generation figures set forth on pages 4 62 and 4-63 of the FEIS /ffIR, DMC failed to utilize any multiplier for indirect and induced employment in determining that some 509 additional students would be added to SAUSD's school under scenano 1 " However, in determining that 82 new students would be indirectly generated for the SAUSD school system under "scenario 2 " DMC used a multiplier of 0 61 for indirect and induced employment, which resulted m a projection of additional new jobs which DMC included in its calculation When that same 0 61 multiplier is applied to the figures set forth on page 5 of DMC's report, the revised number of new households estimated to live in the SAUSD' would SAUSD\Scbool Impacts lever • City Council City of Tustin December 18, 2000 Page 6 9 • be 878 new households, rather than the 547 households set forth in Table 4 4 -1 on page 4 63 of the FEIS/FEIR Then, by applying the same 0 93 student generation multiplier used in the FEIS/FEIR (which is now outdated and is no longer used by SAUSD), the number of additional students that would be generated under `scenario 1 ' would be 817 new students- which is substantially different than the 509 student figure reported in the FEIS/FEIR Since the FEIS/FEIR clearly concedes that the City s Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin will result in 24,852 "direct" jobs and 15,081 "indirect and induced" jobs (see Table 4 2 -2 at p 4 -18) there is no rational jiisttficahon for why the same 0 61 multiplier fox this second category of "indirect and induced jobs would have been omitted from DMC's calculations for "scenano 1," but rnch/tied in his calculations for ` scenario 2 Once bis calculations for scenano 1' are adjusted to account for the proper number of "indirect and induced' jobs to be generated by the redevelopment of MCAS Tustin, it is clear that the supposed "worst case" scenario for the student generation impacts to SAUSD is off by a factor of over 6004 and this can hardly be considered to be an insignificant error that can be disregarded In fact this miscalculation is so material that it requires the 'HElS/FEIR to be supplemented and recirculated for public review and comment Moreover, what this omission underscores is the need to critically reevaluate DMC's calculations and carefully reexamine the assumptions upon which those calculations were based to determine whether the FEIS/FEIR has senously underestimated the number of new students that will be generated for the SAUSD school system by the City's proposed Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin At the request of SAUSD's counsel, the consulting firm of Public Economics, Inc ( "PET') has been isked to undertake such an reevaluation in time for the City s Council December 18 hearing on GPA 00 001 and I will defer to PEI to direct its written analysis to the City for its review in this regard As the record stands now, however the so called "worst case' scenario for student generation Impacts on SAUSD is factually incorrect and is patently inadequate under CEQA In addition the 82 student scenano — referred to as ` scenano 2" in the Agenda Report is highly questionable because it is based on the untenable and wholly unsupportable assumption that only ten percent (10 %) of the direet" jobs generated by the development of the City's Reuse Plan will be `new" jobs to the MCAS Tustin development area that will not already be filled by pre existing employees This assumption will also be examined in the report to be submitted by PEI As a final observation in this area, we find the City s reliance on the direct or "indirect" nature of school =pacts troubling This is clearly a distinction without a difference Whether the students are generated by increases in households brought about by a neighboring agency s promotion of job and revenue producing opportunities, or SAUSD\School Impacts tenet • City Council City of Tustin December 18, 2000 Page 7 a whether the students are generated by the construction of homes, is irrelevant to a determination of whether the impact is requtred to be disclosed under CEQA By obscuring this Issue, the City has essentially eliminated the logical progression of analytical events leading to mitigation and project alternative discussions It is precisely this type of Indifferent agency conduct that CEQA 1s aimed at exposing, particularly in multi jurisdictional settings Failure to Disclose the Unavailability of Land for New School Facilities Irrespective of the number of students truly generated by the City's Reuse Plan, the FEIS/FEIR completely overlooks whether the SAUSD can actually accommodate these students Even a cursory evaluation of SAUSD facihUes if one had been undertaken at all by the City reveals that there is no land available for absorption of these students The City simply ignores the effect of the addition of 509 new students to the 58,000 students already housed in SAUSD The City fails to acknowledge that significant impacts attend the addition of any students to a school district which is already on multi track year round education, featuring some of the highest student per acre densities in the state of California While schools in other districts operate elementary schools of 750 900 students on 10 12 acres, the same schools in SAUSD house as many as 1,124 such children on 2 88 acres To state that SAUSD has feasible `options to acquire additional school sites to accommodate more students in an urban district is simply false A proper environmental analysis would have addressed this space issue directly Instead the tEIS/FEIR avoids taking a hard look at whether it is feasible to find space available to construct classroom facilities to house the hundreds and hundreds of new students that will be added to SAUSD's schools as a result of the proposed redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin. The "ratio' approach to impact assessment - the concept that the impact of 509 students is small ' m relation to the total site of the District (58,000) has long been regarded as inappropriate under CEQA Accordingly, Bus is yet another example of a material failure on the part of the City to adequately assess the significant impacts of its Reuse Plan on pubhc services and facilities Failure to Identify Feasible Mitigation Measures and Protect Alternatives In pursuit of identifying adequate mitigation, the SAUSD has asked for undeveloped land, which is virtually non existent in the Santa Ana area The City, however, has refused this request Ostensibly, the City seems to believe that it can dismiss effects to SAUSD because (1) the students added could be spread district wide (even thought there are no facilities to house them) (2) the students generated are "secondary effects' in other words students generated by houses huh for the base are more important, and (3) SAUSaSchool Impacts letter • • City Council City of Tustin December 18 2000 Page 8 the portion of the base in SAUSD involves is non residential, employment generating land uses Of course, as to this last point it is the City, which has made this land use decision Therefore to the extent the City has elected to shape its land use plan in a manner that reduces the obligation for school sites genuinely owed to SAUSD, this is the City's, not SAUSD s, fault Happily, CF-QA provides a solution in these cases — the adoption of feasible mitigation measures following the consideration of a reasonable range of project alternatives There can be no question that such feasible mitigation or project alternatives are required to be considered and that they may only be rejected if found infeasible on the basis of substantial evidence It is difficult to Imagine, with some 150 acres of the base falling within SAUSD's jurisdiction, that a land dedication could not be made available Clearly, it is feasible — land in generous portions hos been made available to other school districts on the basis of lesser impacts Notably, there are more students in SAUSD housed in portables (24,000) than the entire student population of Irvine Unified (23,400) When considered in this light the failure to provide land to SAUSD presents a stark — and troubling — contrast It is clear that the City of Tustin has made accommodation for its impacts in other contexts and in fact mitigated in excess of its impacts in at least two instances With respect to traffic, the record discloses that in the City of Santa Ana the City of Tustin mitigated impacts to affected intersections to the degree the reuse project contributed traffic — pro rata in other words Notably, however, with respect to two overcrowded intersections, the City of Tustin proposed to pay for complete — not pro rata — improvelnents to these intersections to offset the impacts If the City of Tustin can spend money to lay asphalt to help autos move more efficiently through intersections, can there be a justification for ignonng mitigation for children in an overcrowded school district? We think not What is so unique about this case is that it involves a military base disposal and reuse process and, as such the City in its capacity as the Local Redevelopment Agency designated for this process has the ability to recommend to the U S Department of the i Compare the disparate treatment given to the Irvine Unified and Tustin Unified School Dstncts, both of which have existmg capacity at all grade levels Irvine USD received 20 acres of land for 302 students generated Tustin USD received 60 acres for 1 143 students Santa Ana received no acreage for 509 students Using a pro-rata share approach, Irvine USD received 1 acre of land for every 15 1 students, Tustin received 1 acre of land for every 19 05 students If one were to merely extrapolate an egwvalent amount of acreage for Santa Ana USD using these ratios, Santa Ana USD would be entitled too 33 7 acres (using the ratio for Irvine USD) or 26 7 acres, respectively The "solutions" proposed by the city to this land availability issue for SAUSD fall far short of the City's treatment of the other two school drstncts involved SAUSD\School Impacts letter • City Council City of Tustin December 18, 2000 Page 9 • Navy (the "Navy ") that surplus federal land at MCAS - Tustm be transferred to SAUSD at no cost to the City -to help mitigate the student generation impacts that will be caused by the City's Reuse Plan At present, MCAS - Tustin is overflowing with the precious commodity of vacant land which SAUSD desperately needs for school sites to construct the additional classroom facilities necessary to accommodate the hundreds and hundreds of new students which tvill be generated by the redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin As a feasible mitigation measure, the City could recommend to the Navy that a sufficient amount of surplus land lying within SAUSD's boundaries at MICAS- Tustin be conveyed to SAUSD for new school sites Alternatively, without any threat to the economic viability of the City s Reuse Plan, the City could propose mitigation measures which would entail a public benefit conveyance of surplus land at MCAS Tustin which was outside of SAUSD's boundaries, but which could be acquired by a Joint Powers Authonty (` JPA ") of which SAUSD would be a member along with the Rancho Santiago Community College District ( "RSCCD ") For example instead of supportmg the conveyance of 100 acres of surplus land at MCAS Tustin to the South Orange County Commruuty College District ( "SOCCCD '), the City could recommend to the Navy that a sufficient portion of this acreage to construct a iC -14 facility be transferred to a JPA, which would consist of an `Education Coalition" including SAUSD and RSCCD This option was discussed in the earlier correspondence which SAUSD s counsel submitted to the City in connection with GPA 00 001 Unfortunately, in instead of discussing any mitigation measures m the PSIS /kiIR which would involve the transfer of surplus federal land to SAUSD, either directly to SAUSD or indirectly to a JPA of which SAUSD was a member, the City has wrongfully concluded in the FEIS/FEIR that any problems caused by the additional students which will be generated by its Reuse Plan could be resolved by the imposition of school impact development fees, or other revenues which SAUSD could attempt to obtain from the state of California (FFJS/FEIR p 4 63) However, even assuming for the sake of argument that such fees or other state funds might be available for SAUSD to obtain, those revenues would not mitigate the ovemding problem faced by SAUSD r e the critical shortage of available land within its boundaries that can be used of new school sites Such land does, however, exist m abundance at Iv1CAS Tustin Without acknowledging the fact that it holds the key to providing SAUSD with the land it needs to construct new school sites, the City offers the following unsubstantiated comments in the FEISTEIR in an attempt to Justify its failure to propose feasible mitigation measures to lessen or avoid the significant student generation impacts associated with the build out of the City's Reuse Plan SAUSD\School impacts letter • City Council City of Tustin December 18, 2000 Page 10 ,1L • "Since the need for new facilities is not vet confirmed, there is no facility design or location that could be evaluated in this EIS/E1R for fiscal Impacts to the environment .and.-.Lphysical impacts may be significant and, if so znrttgation would be the responsibility of the SAUSD' (FEIS/FEIR, pp 4 63 to 4 64, emphasis added ) In the first place, SAUSD believes that, in its pnor submittals to the City, it has adequately demonstrated `the need for new facilities " and it bas proposed any number of facility designs including, most recently, a K 14 facility, which could have - and should have been evaluated in the FEIS/PEIR in the form of feasible mitigation measures and project alternatives Instead of doing this, however the FElSl1.LIR concluded that Any mitigation for possible fiscal impacts associated with future new facilities to accommodate potential indirect student generation would be the responsibility of the SAUSD because the actual need at this time is speculative and there is no facility design or location for evaluation in this EIS/EIR ' (Id, at pp 4 -66 to 4 67 emphasis added ) As evidenced by the staff comments set forth in Volume 2 of the FE1S/FE1R (see Response L9 1), the City has apparently based the above - quoted conclusions on (1) the provisions of section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines and (2) the court's discussion in the Goleta Union case Of course, to suggest that student generation impacts are too "speculative for evaluation" and that they can be ignored under section 15145 of the Guidelines would be to completely ignore the holdings the Goleta Union and E7 Dorado Union cases —which stand for the exact opposite proposition Indeed, by claiming that student generation impacts were too "speculative" to analyze in an VTR, any project proponent could shirk any and all responsibility for ever discussing or attempting to mitigate such impacts More importantly, the City s attempt to rely on the Goleta Union case m its effort to shift the responsibility for mitigating student generation impacts to SAUSD, rather than itself, is entirely misplaced_ Nowhere in the Goleta Union case does it state, or even suggest, that it is the sole responsibility of the impacted school district to devise ways to mitigate the addition of new students to be generated by the build out of a development project To contrary, that case underscores the absolute necessity for an appropriate EIR to provide ' a range of possible mitigation measures related to potential physical impacts of the [development plan] " (37 Cal App 4th at pp 1033 1034 ) Unlike the Supplemental EIR, which was under attack in the Goleta Union case, the FEIS /kbIR in this case contains no statements or findings of significant student generation impacts to SAUSD and provides no mitigation measures, other than unspecified developer fees, to minimize or elinunate such impacts To date the CEQA SAUSD1Schooi Impacts latter • • City Council City of Tustin December 18 2000 Page 11 cases decided by the California courts which have addressed student generation impacts, such as the Goleta Union and El Dorado Union cases, have not involved a situation in which a city, county, or local agency which was proposing to approve a new development project which would generate new students for one or more school thstnets has had the ability, as part of a military base closure and reuse process, to make free federal land available to the affected school districts for use as new school sites In this case the City has recognized us ability to mitigate (I) the 302 additional students to be added to Irvine Unified by providing that district with 20 acres for a new school site and (2) the 1,143 additional students to be added to the Tustm Unified by providing that district with a total of 60 acres for three new school sites What is missing here, however, is the City's recognition of its need to mitigate the 509 (actually 817) additional students to be added to SAUSD by providing that distnct with adequate acreage for new school sites at MCAS-Tustm CEQA does not countenance such an omission in the bhIS/FbIR, and the City must correct this glaring deficiency before proceeding to approve GPA 00 001 Sincerely M Andnette Culbertson President MAC/lld Attachment cc Hon William Cassidy Jr Dr Edward Hernandez Dr Al Majares Dr Don Stabler John Didion Ruben Smith, Esq Edmond M Connor, Esq SAUSDVSebool Impair letter PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC. Public Finance Urban Economics Development Services January 16 2001 Mr Dana Ogdon Senior Project Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Re GPA -00 -001 FEIS /FEIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS- Tustin Dear Mr Ogdon Introduction At the request of counsel for Santa Ana Unified School District ( SAUSD"), Public Economics, Inc (' PEI ) has prepared this response ( "Response ") to certain staff comments set forth in Attachments 5 and 6 to the Agenda Report to City Manager William :Huston," prepared by City staff in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment No 00 -001 and certification of the FE1S /FEIR by the City Council of the City of Tustin ( "City') at the public hearing scheduled for January 16 2001 In particular this Response addresses comments of City staff regarding the number of new students projected to be generated within SAUSD from proposed redevelopment ofMCAS- Tustin. PEI is California s leading provider of redevelopment consulting services to the education community Since its founding in 1992, PEI has been involved in more than three - fourths of all redevelopment plans and amendments approved in the State of California— including a number of military base closures —on behalf of over 200 local school districts, community college districts, and county offices of education Dwight Berg, principal investigator for this Response, has personally advised over 125 school districts and community college districts regarding the impacts of growth and development in general, and redevelopment in particular Mr Berg has a Master of Science degree in Social Science with an emphasis in Economics, and Bachelor of Science degrees in Economics and Engineering, all from the California Institute of Technology 82(7 lV 6nvn and ( vnhp Road ( )range, CA 9a 768 -4712 (714)6-77-0 4 FAY (77-I) 647 -6231 Llinld Wide Web hhtp; tams -pub- •cun.rom .lannnry 16, 2001 Mr Dana Ogdon Page 2 • • Analysis The FEIS /FEIR relies on the (j) Updated Report on the indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the MCAS Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Ana Unified School District ( "DMC Report'), prepared by Dennis Macheski Consulting ( "DMC ") in May 1999 and (ii) Updated Report School Facility Construction Cost Impact of Redevelopment (sic) of the MCAS Tustin Site on the Santa Ana Unified School District (' JCJ Report'), prepared by JCJ Associates in June 1999 Specifically City staff state that 'the DMC Report brackets a high and low range of probable household impacts to the [District, and the JCJ Report uses the DMC Report high and low impact assumptions to identify a range of students Based on the DMC and JCJ Reports, the FEiS /FEIR concludes that proposed redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin will generate only 82 to 509 new students for SAUSD As further support for this conclusion, City staff- refers to a report prepared by PEI in July 1996 for SAUSD entitled Analysis of the Impact of MCAS- Tustin Reuse Plan on Santa Ana Unified School District' (` 1996 PEI Report'), m which PEI projected an impact of 404 new households and 272 new students City staff fails to disclose that the 1996 PEI Report utilized student generation factors which are now out -of -date, and were not used by JC.1 in calculating the figures reported in the FEIS /FE[R. The 1996 PEI Report used 0 673 K 12 students per household, which in 1998 the District updated to 093 K 12 students per household the factor used in the FEiS /FEIR. in January 2000 the District updated the factor to 0 995 K 12 students per household —an increase of about 7 percent For purposes of this letter and for the sake of comparison, all figures from the 1996 PEI Report have been adjusted to reflect the 1998 student generation factor utilized in the FEIS /FCIR except where noted Using the 1998 student generation rate, the 1996 PEI Report would have shown a projected impact of 377 new students (Using the 2000 student generation rate, the 1996 PEI Report would have shown a projected impact of 402 new students )] In referring to the 1996 PEI Report, City staff also fails to disclose the true purpose for which that report was prepared. Specifically the 1996 PEI Report was prepared to identify the minimum number of students that would be generated by the proposed redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin, in a manner consistent with the requirements proposed at the time regarding how mitigation payments by the redevelopment agency for MCAS - Tustin should be determined. City staff did note that the 1996 PEI Report was based on the City's original estimate That 26 180 new on -site jobs will be created at MCAS -Tustin If the 1996 i'EI Report had been based 011 the revised estimate of 24 852 new jobs utilized in the FEiS/FEIR, the revised number of new students would be slightly less than the amounts shown above January /6, 2001 • • Mr Dann Ogdon Page 3 The 1996 PEI Report was prepared one and one -half years before the initial draft of the EIS/FIR was prepared, when the City of Tustin was claiming that the proposed redevelopment of MCAS -Tustin would have no direct or indirect nnpact on CAUSD The 1996 PEI Report utilized a conservative methodology to demonstrate that even under a 'best case" scenario from the City's point of view redevelopment of MCAS -Tustin would generate at least 377 new students in SAUSD resulting in a significant impact that the City needed to address in the EIS /EIR. Although a worst case scenario is required to be examined in preparing an EIR, the 1996 PEI Report was not intended to serve that purpose Indeed, that task was left to the City's consultants If PEI had been asked to develop a worst case scenario the projections would not only have been much higher than the projections set forth in the 1996 PEI Report, they would also have been considerably higher than the projections from the MIL and JO Reports that were incorporated within the FEIS/FEIR The fact of the matter is that in presenting a 'worst case scenario the FEIS /FEIR greatly understate the true range of new students that would be generated by the proposed redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin This is the result of the FEIS /FEIR's ignoring certain basic economic principles related to job growth in Orange County and misinterpreting or misapplying other economic data As more Cully explained below if the FEIS /FEIR is corrected to properly apply such principles and data, the range of new students that would be generated by the proposed reuse of MCAS - Tustin would increase by approximately a factor of 10- from the current projections of 82 to 509 new students to a revised protection of 741 to 5 581 new students. The FELS/FEIR underestimates the number of jobs at i1ICA.C- Tustin that will he new to Orange County Method 112 of the FEIS /FE1R estimates that redevelopment of MCAS -Tustin will generate only 82 new students for SAUSD This projection is based on the following assumptions 0) 90 percent of the 24,852 jobs created on -site at MCAS - Tustin will involve firms which simply relocate from elsewhere in Orange County (ii) all such jobs will involve the same employees as previously and (iii) none of these same employees will relocate their residence in order to be The term significant impact' appears to be applied differently by PEI than by the City of Tustin. PEI deems significant any students generated over and above SAUSD's existing student capacity (based on State guidelines.) The City does not identify any objective criteria to be used in determining 'significant, other than to suggest that, if enough students were generated to fill an entire grade school, middle school. or high school, then the student generation impact would be deemed significant under CEQA. PEI is not aware of any such standard being used in California to gauge the significance of estimated increases in student enrollment. .knmary 16 2001 Mr Dana Ogdon Page -1 closer to their place of work However these assumptions are simply untenable for at least four reasons • • First, the FEIS /FEIR ignores the fact that at least 1,914 (7 8 percent) of the jobs to be created on -site at MCAS- Tustin are of such a site specific nature that they could not possibly be relocated' from somewhere else in the County ((FEIS /FEIR at p 4 -18 ). The regional and community parks, the golf course, the learning village, the housing facilities are unique land uses which are not at all suitable for relocation, as opposed to land uses which might house tenants that relocate from other buildings We believe that this is an oversight of the FEIS /FEIR rather than an attempt to claim that a golf course regional park, or other similar facility will actually be relocated to INCAS- Tustin ( meeting this oversight alone nearly doubles the impact projected in the FEIS /FEIR Many of the R & D or professional office jobs that will be created in the land use areas designated as commercial/business commercial, and community core (these three land uses are projected to create 22,394 jobs out of a total of 24 852 jobs) may well relocate from elsewhere in the County However many of the johs associated with the retail, wholesale and discount businesses that are also projected for these land use areas will be new to the County Indeed, at least some of these johs mviIl be 'big box retail establishments such as Wal-Mart. Such large -scale chain businesses are most likely to open new stores at MCAS - Tustin to serve areas that they did not previously serve (including the 12 500 new residents the FEiS /FEIR projects will live at MCAS - Tustin) as opposed to closing a store and relocating it to WAS-Tustin Second, the FEIS /FEIR fails to provide any credible data to substantiate its claim that only IO% of the jobs at MCAS- Tustin "could" be new to Orange County i e that 90 percent of such johs would be filled by current County residents City staff has stated that this claim is based on interviews with research personnel, brokers and staff economists at certain companies and agencies. However City staff fails to specifically identity any person interviewed or more importantly what questions such persons were asked or what assumptions they were asked to make in arriving at this 90 percent figure No verifiable information regarding these supposed responses is provided in time FEiS /FEIR. Third the FEiS /FEIR claims that not only will 90 percent of the jobs at MCAS- Tustin simply relocate from elsewhere within the County but that such relocation will not have any impact on SAUSD In so doing, the FEIS /FEIR entirely ignores the phenomenon known to urban economists as `backfill. The FEIS /FEIR could just as easily claim that the new housing units at MCAS - Tustin will be occupied by other residents of Orange County who move 10 NICAS- Tustin, but whose former January 16 2001 Mr Dana Ogclon Page 5 • • homes will never be occupied by new residents. Of course, such a claim would be inappropriate since the former hones of new Tustin residents are 'backtilled" by new occupants The FEIS/FEIR appears to correctly accounts for the backfill phenomenon when it comes to residential uses However the FEiS /FEIR appears to ignore the backfill phenomenon when it comes to non - residential uses. With non - residential uses backfill occurs when commercial /industrial space previously occupied by businesses that relocate to new space is ultimately occupied by other firms new to the County (or by other firms that move from elsewhere in the County which In turn vacate space filled by firms from outside the County) By ignoring the backfill phenomenon for non - residential uses, the FEIS /FEIR implicitly assumes that the 7 8 million square feet of business space vacated by businesses that allegedly relocate to 'ACAS - Tustin will remain vacant indefinitely Of course, this assuniption is just as inappropriate for non - residential uses as for residential uses Because of backlit!, even if all new jobs at MCAS -Tustin went to existing workers in the County (which we dispute) there will still be substantial net additional impacts on total County employment However the FEIS /FEIR fails to consider these additional impacts Additional employment impacts will depend not only on the backtill, but on such factors as the number of County residents currently (1) employed outside the County (it) unemployed, or (in) not m the labor force However in claiming that 90 percent of the new jobs at MCAS - Tustm will he filled by persons who already have lobs in the County the FEIS /FEIR not only ignores the backfill, it presents no analysis of any of these factors As a result the 90 percent clam seems highly unlikely given that Orange County is a net exporter of jobs (i.e there are more jobs in the County than there are employed County residents) unemployment rates are at historic lows and labor force participation is at all time highs Finally should any significant portion of the jobs at MCAS - Tustin simply relocate from elsewhere in Orange County the FEiS /FEIR also ignores the likelihood that some of the workers who hold New jobs lead to migration of new workers to 1111 these jobs and migrating employees may follow or precede local job creation In its report 'Causes of Growth and Possible Control measures in the San Diego Region (Agenda Report No. R -83 September 11 1987), the San Diego Association of Governments ('SANDAG') stales that many of these labor -force dependent migrants are lured lo the area by non - economic factors such as climate and environment But without a job or at least the prospect of one, they would not migrate here, or after arrival. would be unable to afford a permanent stay Moreover migration impacts are relevant C\ell of all new jobs went to local workers, in nhich case migrants would simply 'back -fill' a large share of the jobs vacated by local residents, i e take the existing 'Group A jobs vacated by current residents who take new jobs, or fill existing 'Group B' labs vacated by current residents who fill the 'Group A jobs, and so on ✓aiiitary 16, 2001 Mr Dana Ogdon Page 6 • • those jobs will relocate to SAUSD in order to be closer to their place of work City staff claims that the number of workers who do relocate to SAUSD to be closer to their place of work is negligible However staff fails to provide any evidence to support such claim or to quantify the amount of relocating workers that they deem to be negligible in light of the foregoing, we believe that a figure of at least 50 percent compared to the City s figure of 10 percent— is much more reasonable for establishing the low end of the range of new jobs at MCAS- Tustin that will also be new to Orange County and that 100 percent is an appropriate figure for establishing the high end of the range The 50 percent figure still appears highly conservative, since even if all on -site jobs are relocated from elsewhere in the County it assumes that either one -half of the old space will not he backfilled and /or one -half of the new on -site jobs will be filled by persons previously employed outside the county or previously unemployed or not in the labor force. Accordingly in Alternative ivlethods (B) and (D) below SO percent is substituted for the 10 percent figure used in Method 42 of the FEIS/FEIR as a low end measure of the percentage of jobs projected to be filled by employees who are new to Orange County The FEJS /FElR finis to include indirect and induced jobs in all of its Methods. Method 112 of the FEIS /FEiR properly notes that on -site jobs at MC AS-Tustin will have a multiplier' effect, that for every on -site job at MCAS- Tustin, there will he a combined total of 0 61 additional off -site jobs created by firms that (1) sell to or buy from on -site firms (indirect jobs) and (ii) produce or sell goods to new employees (induced jobs) i-lowes.er Method # 1 of the FEIS/FEIR entirely ignores the impacts associated with such indirect or induced lobs (DMC Report pp 3 -4 6) City staff has stated that Method #2 was intended 'to calculate direct and indirect employment that would occur from implementation of the project, while that was not the intent of Method #1 However this results in the anomalous situation in which Method 42, which includes direct and indirect (i e multiplier) effects, generates fewer bnpacts than Method /11 -which iimorec multiplier effects If the City expects there to he multiplier effects the only meaningful way to bracket a range of impacts is to show multiplier effects in all scenarios Moreover since multiplier effects result from direct employment impacts, to exclude multiplier effects from Method #I because it uses total on -site employment, not direct impacts, invalidates the usefiilness of Method #1 for bracketing impacts' Perhaps failure to acknowledge this point in the FEiS /FEIR and related staff reports. is based on confusion by staff regarding the meaning of 'direct impacts. On the one hand, staff uses direct to refer to student January /6 2001 Mr Dana Ugdon Page 7 • • In addition, City staff has stated that to use a multiplier for [Method] 111 would result in identical conclusions for both [Methods]." This is clearly not the case as Ring as direct employment in Method 111 is assumed to reflect the worst case of 100 percent of on -site jobs (as currently shown in that scenario and recommended by PEI on the previous page) rather than 10 percent as shown in Method 112. if the same 0 61 multiplier for these indirect or induced jobs used in Method 112 is applied to Method 111 the number of new students generated within SAUSD increases by 60 5 percent, 1 e from 509 new students to 819 new students based on 1998 student generation factors (876 new students based on 2000 student generation factors —see Alternative Method A below) The FEIS/PEJR improperly utilizes the "Household Capture" figure from OCP -96 in each of its Methods. The FEiS /FEiR references the following statistic from OCP 96 `3 S% of the housing growth in Orange County from 2000 -2020 will be captured by Santa Ana in each of the two methodologies it uses for projecting the number of new students within SAUSD the FEIS /FEIR misapplies this statistic by assuming that only 4 0 percent of the workers taking the new lobs created at MCAS- Tustin will live in homes located within Santa Ana The household location of workers is based on two major factors- (i) commuting patterns and (ii) housing affordability Neither commuting patterns nor housing affordability is directly dependent on the number of homes being created in Santa Ana relative to the number of hones being created elsewhere in Orange County Therefore, the 3 8 percent figure from OCP 96 which estimates the percentage of all housing growth countywide that will be captured by Santa Ana between 2000 and 2020 bears no direct correlation to the number of workers who fill the new jobs created at MCAS -Tustin and establish new households in Santa Ana Moreover the OCP 96 figure in no way considers the type of jobs that will he created at MCAS - Tustin. As stated above a significant number of such jobs are service, retail, clerical, warehouse, or other similar types of jobs that tend to offer moderate pay at best 1- however housing to be constricted at MCAS- Tustin is predominately upscale, single family housing that will invariably he beyond the economic means of many of the workers who fill these types of jobs generation impacts of on -site housing, and 'indirect' to refer to student impacts of generated by jib creation. On the other hand, staff uses direct' to refer to those on -site jobs that have multiplier effects and indirect' to the multiplier effects themselves (which in fact Include indirect' impacts— off -site jobs created M firms within the region that sell to or buy from on -site firms —and induced' impacts— off -site jobs created by firms within the region that produce or sell goods and services demanded by new employees). January 16 200/ • • Mr Dana Ogdon Page 8 (FEIS/FEiR at p 4 -20) As a result, workers filling these jobs will need to find affordable housing in other areas and communities near MCAS - Tustin. Accordingly it is very important that the data used to estimate the number of workers at MCAS -Tustin who are likely to establish new households in Santa Ana account for housing affordability in Santa Ana and other communities around MCAS- Tustin. By including data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns —and by Inference housing affordability Census data prove a much more appropriate source than OCP 96 for estimating the number of workers who will establish new households m Santa Ana. Census data from 1990 show that out of 178 187 jobs in Santa Ana, 45 414 workers (25 49 percent) also live in Santa Ana. in other words, 25 49 percent ofjobs in Santa Ana are tilled by workers who found Santa Ana to be within a reasonable commuting distance and to provide affordable housing Census data also show that of 1 123 048 Jobs in Orange County 81 313 workers (7 24 percent) live m Santa Ana Since 1\4C /AS- Tustin is located within and directly adjacent to SAIJSD it is expected that a similar percentage of workers from jobs at MCAS Tustin will reside within SAIJSD In other words, it is prudent to estimate that somewhere between 724 percent and 25 49 percent of workers will reside within SAIISD based on Census data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns and by inference, housing affordability Accordingly in Alternative Methods (i3), (C), (D), and (E) below the figures of 7.24 percent and 25 49 percent derived from the 1990 Census have been substituted for the 4 percent figure that the DMC Report derived from OCP 96 Alternative methodologies fir estivnating the number of additional students to be I,,enerated in VAUSD by redevelopment if MCAS-Tustin Alternative Method (A) This alternative method consists of Method #1 from the FE1S /FEiR modified to include the additional indirect /induced jobs which the DMC Report included in is Method //2 but unjustifiably excluded from Method ill The number of indirect or induced jobs that is utilized in this alternative method is the same number that is estimated by the City in the FEiS/FEIR (FEiS /FEIR at p 4 -18 ) By simply including the number of new students that will be generated by these indirect or induced jobs, the FEiS /FEIR s projection of 509 new students increases to 819 with 1998 student generation rates (876 students with 2000 student generation rates). ` By comparison. the 1991) Census also demonstrates that of the 31 531 people who work in Tustin, only 5 789 (17 26 percent) also live in Tustin. The fact that the number of workers who !he and work III Santa Ana is more than eight percentage points higher than the number that work and live in Tustin suggest that housing is more affordable in Santa Ana than in Tustin —and as a result, that Santa Ana would draw relatiNely pore of the workers from ACAS- Tustin. .lanuary Ili 2001 Mr Dana O:;don Page 9 • • Alternative Method (73) This alternative method is based on Method 112 from the FEIS/FEIR with two modifications First, it substitutes 50 percent for the 10 percent figure that the DMC Report used to estimate the number of jobs created at MCAS - Tustin that would be new to Orange County Second, it substitutes the 7 24 percent figure derived from the 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure used by the FEIS /FEIR to estimate the number of new household created by redevelopment of MCAS -Tustin that will locate within SAUSD These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS -Tustin to increase by a factor of nine from 82 to 741 new students with 1998 student generation rates (793 students with 2000 student generation rates) Alternative Method (C) This alternative method is based on Method Ill from the FEIS /FEIR with two modifications First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total number of jobs created by MCAS- Tustin Second at uses the 7 24 percent figure to estimate the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS -Tustin that will locate within SAUSD These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin to increase by a factor of nearly 3 from 509 to 1 482 with 1998 student generation rates (1 58S students with 2000 student generation rates). A /ternotive Method (D) This alternative method is based on Method It2 from the FEIS /FEIR with two modifications. First, it uses the 50 percent figure to estimate the number of jobs created at MCAS - Tustin that will be new to Orange County Second, it substitutes the 25 49 percent figure derived from 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure utilized by the FEIS /FEIR to estimate the number of new households created by redevelopment ofMCAS- Tustin that will locate within SAUSD These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin to increase by a factor of nearly 32 from 82 to 2 192 new students with 1998 student generation rates (2,791 students with 2000 student generation rates). Alternative Method (E) This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the FEIS /FEFR with hvo modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total number of jobs created by MCAS- Tustin Second, it uses the 25 49 percent figure to estimate the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin that will reside within SAUSD These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin to increase by a factor of more than 10 from 509 to 5,217 new students with 1998 student generation rates (S 581 students with 2000 student generation rates) Conclusion In conclusion, by making reasonable modifications to the basic assumptions upon which the new household estimates set forth in the FEIS /FEIR are based, a more credible range of estimates ./amrcny 16, 2001 Mr Dana Ogdon Page 10 • • emerges to better define the student generation impacts on SAUSD which will be caused by redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin. The current 'best case and worst case" scenarios set forth in the FEIS/FEIR (i e 82 to 509 additional students) are simply not credible and should be revised upward (i.e to 741 to 5,217 students based on 1998 student generation factors (and to 793 to 5 581 new students based on 2000 student generation factors) in light of the points discussed above Sincerely yours, Public Economics, Inc. By. Calk, +L Dwight`E Berg, P.E Consultant attachment K \S\NTA AN USDU IRRFSPS SAM • eon\ fBLOY 1pm.SnbOSn NY VLNVS Y 'snsua3 0661 wait f%06t'S:) TIN nuPSJo.U1J ted nrp waned atnunuo0 salnutsgns ow (3) po414N m51-10`1 0661 wodJ (',064 1 cm; noes dot nep waurd alntutuoa ru'v rims 1 u snld'NBnuawad tuawsoldwa panp anptwn(r (!) salnlnsgns oslr (a) potpa}q Snsu43 0661 waJ (1 o f L) s1un03 ante roJ rlrp waned nnwwoa euy nuts salrnnsgns es'? (3) potpalsl '511504D 0661 w0111 10 of L 1 sluno3 a8ue.0 dou nrp waned ntmuwoa ruv tints (11) sold 'a rtuaadad 104w0(o0wa pang anilewal a (1) salwusgns osle (H) potnaly ffi31/5133 w suonrinalra 14 poylary ayl wool papnpxa 4,4m 4014e) spedwl no( paanpwnaadlpul apnpw (31 g2nonp (N) spo41a1V IRS'S I6L Z 385'i C6L 91,R RR ttS r.) 3bb7 s 66u s 660 Y367) So60 s66u 609'5 5'08' £65'I L6L ORA RR LtS LIZ'S 809' ZRt'1 LPL 618 ZR 802 £60 113'6 116'0 116'6 113T 118"6 £66 609'2 CO8' C65''1 1.61. O8R R8 LtS 061 s, ,o6t sc. T'OFL "ofIT $ouu t °.0uu t .006 900'1: (00'11 900'Z0 (00'11 900'33 1033 899'£1 °,0U0 sS °.000 s2 ,000 SS 300055 9000 SS 'DUO SS 00u0sS 010'01 500'03 010'04 200'03 010'04 100'1 1S8'4' 621'2! 022 621'21 08c 6S1'SI 91S1 0 T9'0 T3'6 17.0 19 0 19 0 1916 707 I SAL: 9:t 'I 1S8'4: 934 1 1S8'P' S8t' 3 1SR'tt 114.00 001. 1000 Os 8000 Our 8001081 °.'000001 °,60001 '000001 12843 1S8'Y' 128143 128'1 158'43 1S8't' 1S8't0 artcomm IQ 14 le 14 NN VN lQJ Fo41alV lJJ P047a1y l8) F041 ^IV 14 pot{ IA N Ps'WaTV 14' F04701 \ a.vtewa1!V angrwa1 N a uttunipp' aAI1VW 1[N anpetuNlN S133/2I131 SI3IRI III (000Z) 1JNdIVI 1N3Q01S (000:1 Ployasnoy dad onr> uorytd40401u4pws s,CISIT'S lvdlsig 'nouns paywn rt1N flues 441 m a t1 01 pa1ettnu3 (8661) 12Vd11111N30018 (8661) Pl0448110H dad 0"er voUrnua01019078 S•QSIINS IIMSIQ imps paywll rU\ thins 4y1 w and 01 palrw11s3 4 pump imps pa(pu0 env nuns am m and 01 patewrys3 'luaw(oldw3 papp( 4114) palrpossV 6tuno3 aZue.0 m splo4asno1 '40003 a8ued3 m saa6oldw3 01 Splo4asno} JO 01(eJ '(paanpul 3nanpul 'pang) Inol luaw/,oldw3 spedutl 1uawAoldw3 paanpulpaanpul :luaw(oldw3 paanplg put panpul .0J nagdnlnp 1u4wsoldw3 pang MIN Rgln0 3 1211130 01 maN pattwgs3 luawsoldw31112-00 MIN 9019018 513121134 01589968811°D poytaly xvltwal[y pedwl i alrwgln)1IlOQ IIIIH dot Suullrin!IrJ mola{l pau111n0 sunl1ea11ipn1V 110 pase3 (3) P"'gi)'b)'(q)'(y) Po41al' lI 1AJR131 ut01J Z4 p041aIV P111' 14 P"IPINJ ui4sni-SYDIAJ Jo auawdoianapas "cq usnvs unpin paal:aaua3 aq 04 sJuapnls ieuowppv Jo .IagwnN 3waewgsa .IOJ sai olopotpalu aA!Ieu1alry Jo .CIewwns I IIaIHXi Sand Ana Unified 5#hool District FACILITIES PLANNING Al Mijares, Ph.D Superintendent January 16 2001 Mr Dana Ogdon Senior Protect Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92750 Re- (,P 4 -00 -001 FEJS/FEIR for Disposal and Reuse of AK( 4 S- Tustin Dear Mr Ogdon. At the request of Connor, Blake Gnffin LLP the attorneys for the Santa Ana Unified School District ( "SAUSD ') and the Rancho Santiago Community College District (' RSCCD") [hereinafter SAUSD and RSCCD shall collectively be referred to as the 'Districts']. I have been asked to submit this letter in response to certain comments set forth in Attachments S and 6 to the Agenda Report to City Manager William Huston, which has been prepared by the Redevelopment Agency staff in support of the proposed adoption of (ecneral Plan Amendment No 00 -001 ( "GPA 00 -001 ') and the certification of the related FEiS /FEiR h).. the City ( ouncil of the City of Tustin (the 'City ') at the public hearing scheduled for January 16 2001 1 ant currently employed as a facilities planner in the Facilities Planning Department of SAUSD and I am presently completing my doctoral studies at the School of Social Ecology at the University of (aliforma at Irvine Prior to working for SAUSD 1 provided planning services for the Cities of Westminster and Long Beach. My present duties include the coordination and administration of facilities planning activities related to new school construction. reno\ ation of existing schools, and other support activities. A large portion of my current workload involves the acquisition of land for the new school facilities, which SAUSD desperately needs My work in this arca has included research regarding the feasibility of developing new schools at the Marine Corps Air Station at Tustin, California ( "MCAS- Tustin'). In the Agenda Report prepared for the public hearng to be held on GPA 00 -001 on January 16 2001 staff continues to assert that the redevelopment of WAS-Tustin will neither (1) generate any significant adverse impacts on public services and facilities within the two Distracts, nor (2) necessitate the C ity s adoption of any mitigation measures to minimize such adverse impacts by for example, designating surplus federal land at M(. AS- Tustin to be set aside as new school sites for SAUSD and RSCCD 1 do not believe that the City has properly assessed the significant environmental effects associated the reuse of MCAS- Tustin, particularly with respect to impacts on public services and facilities affecting the Distncts. In order to properly assess the significance of such environmental impacts, the ( consider all of the letters, testimony and other materials submitted to date on behalf of the 1601 East Chestnut Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92701 -6322 (714) 480 -5357 BOARD OF EDUCATION Nadia Maria Dai is. President Natno Lopez, %ire President Sal Tinajero, Clerk Rosemarie - 1sila, Member John Palacio, Member • • Mr Dana Ogdon. January 16, 2001 Page 2 Districts with respect to the FEIS/FEIR, as well as the following additional facts which i have extrapolated from SAUSD's records and files: (1) SAUSD has a student population which is 96% minority and is characterized by limited English language proficiency at a rate about three times that of the State and Orange County as a whole. About two- thirds of SAUSD s students reside in households with incomes at or below the federal poverty level SAUSD experienced explosive enrollment growth during the latter 1980s and early 1990s. Though the pace of enrollment growth has moderated in recent years, the Slate Class Size Reduction program that emerged suddenly in mud -1996 put additional stress on SAUSD s already overcrowded facilities, as classrooms had to be subdivided to accommodate no more than 20 students in the first and second grades throughout the Di stncl To accommodate all of the school facilities needs, SAUSD has acquired over 400 portable classrooms and operates most of its elementary and intermediate schools on year round schedules; (2) Enrollment counts at SAUSD rose sharply through 1990 and the composition of its student population has changed markedly To date, virtually all students enrolled in SAUSD are members of one or another racial /ethnic minority (with Latinos comprising almost 92% of all students) Socioeconomically nerarly two- thirds qualify for free lunches, 71% possess limited English language skills; 40° %n are immigrants, (3) At the elementary level, nearly lour students in live are limited English - proficient ( "LLP' ), and in many of SAUSD s elementary schools, LLP students collectively speak at least five separate primary languages principally Spanish. Moreover anecdotal evidence suggests that particular neighborhoods may, he evolving differently In community meetings held in connection with the preparation of the FMP SAUSD s consultants heard accounts of areas where voting families with children often rent homes formerly occupied by older empty nesters, extended families often pool resources to buy homes, and many families who cannot afford separate dwellings often double up in the same residence, (4) California is a major entry port into the United States, and Santa Ana and its schools are a conspicuous front doorstep into American society Many families who children attend SAUSD are newly legalized residents, the natural aftermath of the immigration Reform and Control Act ( "IRCA'). Under the 'RCA, some 66 000 persons in Santa Ana applied to legalize their status- -one of every 46 applicants nationwide in a city inhabited by I /1000th of the nation s population. According to a 1994 American Housing Survey 87% of households in Santa Ana with children send them to the City s public schools (vs. 81% for Orange County as a whole) Most transfers into SAt ISD are children of parents holding Jobs in Santa Ana, for whom convenience is a factor • • Mr Dana Ogdon. January 16 2001 Page'; (5) In recent years, scores of Mexicans immigrants from the community of Granlcnal, for example, have settled in Santa Ana, essentially re- creating the community and supplying the next generation of more educated young adults. More recently nearly one fifth (4 417) of the 23 068 refugees corning to Orange County between 1990 and 1994 settled in Santa Ana. The pattern of settlement of California s new immigrants resembles that of earlier immigrants. As before, the majority settled in a handful of California counties to join their family and friends. The distinctiveness of Orange County is its increasing populanly as an intended designation of residence for imnugrants; (6) Immigrant communities, once established, become conspicuous designations for future immigrants with common on gins (as the movement from Granlcnal to Santa Ana exemplifies) Newcomers eager to settle near kin and friends manage to secure accommodations, doubling up and pushing levels of residential density (persons per household) even higher The household configuration of Santa Ana s population is distinctive. Residential density is extraordinarily high, yet continues to rise. Persons per household in 1997 averaged 4 19 far above any other city in Orange County and (7) Santa Ana s population is conducive to future school enrollments. First, 30% of the population is under 18 well above the corresponding figure for the rust of Orange County or California. Second, a disproportionate share of Santa Ana s population is within the childbearing ages (18 -44 years). Santa Ana s age structure (conducive to future enrollments) and its surrounding setting (permeated by public school enrollment growth) are two distinctive features heanng on its future. In addition to the above listed facts, the new Housing Element of the ( iciest Plan of the City of Santa Ana, which was adopted in December 2000 contains the following relevant facts (1) Household Size. During the 1990s, there was an increase in average household size from 4 1 to 4.3 persons per household in Santa Ana, (2) Age Distribution. During the 1990s, the preschool (under 4) and prince working (25 -54) age groups added 9 000 and 15 000 persons respectively while all other age groups showed a decline or a very small increase, (3) Ethnicity The City s Hispanic population increased from about 65% of the total in 1990 to 68% in 1997 The Asian population increased from 9% to 10% during this same penod, while the non - Hispanic White and African American populations showed a net decline (Housing Elements, p A 27 ) Attached hereto as Exhibits I through 4 are three charts and ont, table which I have prepared as follows: • • Mr Dana Ogdon. January 16, 2001 Page 4 (1) Exhibit 1 is a chart entitled Average School Enrollment, which compares the average enrollment of the elementary muddle, and high schools for the SAUSD the Tustin Unified School District, and the Irvine Unified School District. Exhibit A was prepared based on information obtained from the California Department of Education and the EEIS /FEIR for MCAS- Tustin, (2) Exhibit '2' is a chart entitled 'Housing Estimates, Jan. I 2000 which compares the average number of persons per household for the Cities of Santa Ana, "Tustin, and Irvine and the County of Orange. Exhibit '13 was prepared based on information obtained from the California Department of Finance. (3) Exhibit '3 is a chart entitled `Comparison of SAUSD School Densities With California Department of Ed. Recommended Average Student Per Acre, which compares the average number of students per acres for elementary middle, and high schools 111 the SAUSD to the recommended averages for such schools. Exhibit 'C was prepared based on information obtained from the Califorma Department of Education, and (4) Exhibit 4 is a table entitled `SAUSD Enrollments, Acreage and MTYRE Info which summarizes the number of students, the size m acres. the number of students per acre, and the type of multi -track year round education ( "MT) RE ''), if any for each school in the SAUSD The table also provides average Information for the all elementary muddle, and high schools in the District, as well as the District as a whole. Exhibit 4 was prepared based on the SAUSD s own data. Hopefully the data provided above, as well as the charts and table enclosed herewith, will assist the City in reevaluating the environmental impacts associated with the City s Reuse Plan for MCAS - Tustin and will enable it to conclude that (1) the project will have significant adverse effects on mmonty populations seeking to avail themselves of public services and facilities with the two Districts and (2) such impacts need to be adequately mitigated by among other things, designating surplus federal land at MCAS - Tustin to be used for new school sites for the Districts. Very truly yours, Cigar' Colette Marie McLaughlin Planner SAUSD • • EXHIBIT "1" • • wlq ewogspego /samJ /soigdeJ6owap /no6 eo apo MMM / /'dmi I.OL 9£9 uilsnl 900`£ 1769`L- 1-66 euv Blues 9£8` I- ZOL 699 sloouPS u6iH slooyos eIPPIW AaeTuawas WeW110au3 1oo110S e6e.ieAy 0 009 000` t- 009` I- 000`Z 009`Z 000`£ 009`£ • • EXHIBIT "2" HSsing Estimates, Jan f, 2000 50 45 40- • • 35 3 0 ::: • };:.r.• ••. • v.- 2 5 .... :■ �rrxJ �r •::•• ...y.:... * , 3 t f i' •1�111 • �•j,_.- .,•� ••�. 20 • �:: :• • .. {•■fir va WI 11 1 5 •:r■r•:r• %. • • 1 0 d• r: ■ ■ ■• • : X I4r4 f■• m.• f ::r • 05 - .f •r■ ■ .:11511.<1.1•12? :: •r •••1 • •�••• }f•5: 00 • L it n Persons /Household ® Irvine 2 9 D Santa Ana 4 3 Tustin 2 9 6 Orange County 3 1 http-//www doi.ca gov /hIml /Demograp /E Stext him • • EXHIBIT "3" • • 66/9Z/t, Palep lleJa luewdole/leo pue s/sXjeuy ep /ooyos (s,300) s uopeonp3lo luawyedaa 'Pea Z 1 pue 6 'g L saigel Z 06 t 1.01, 3691 6AV aSfVS 6AV 200 In 0 Oz O•b 09 02 001- OZ� 014 091- 081- ant' Jed luepn ;S eOeaany pepuewwooe j p3 jo iuewpedea e!uaojflea up[M saiiisuea looyoS aSflVS 4o uospedwoa • • EXHIBIT "4" SAUSD EnrolSents, Acreage, and MT*E Info i\TTYKE (multi -track School 10/99 CREDS Acres Students per acre year round education) Adams 856 6 75 127 4 cycles Carver 780 4 03 194 4 cycles Davis 780 4 75 164 4 cycles Diamond 935 5 58 168 4 cycles Edison 1 042 3.69 282 4 cycles Franklin 643 2.53 254 1 cycle Fremont 1 124 2 88 390 4 cycles Garfield 1 106 4 99 222 4 cycles Grant' 337 2 75 123 Greenville 986 6 5 152 Harvey 595 5 5 108 Heninger 1 088 6 69 163 4 cycles Hoover 1,208 4 47 270 4 cycles Jackson 1,233 9 52 130 4 cycles Jefferson 966 9.64 100 Kennedy 970 6 162 4 cycles King 1 056 4.98 212 4 cycles Lincoln 1,306 9 53 137 4 cycles Lowell 1,056 512 206 4 cycles Madison 1,281 6 12 209 4 cycles Martin 993 6.81 146 4 cycles Monroe 906 6.6 137 Monte Vista 921 9 98 92 4 cycles Muir 948 8 86 107 Pio Pico 948 4 27 222 4 cycles Remington 575 4 05 142 Romero -Cruz 431 2.3 187 4 cycles Roosevelt 1 177 5.57 211 4 cycles Santiago 1 106 8 97 123 Sepulveda 940 5 44 173 4 cycles Taft 1 153 10 115 Thorpe 763 6 67 114 Walker 914 7 1 129 4 cycles Washington 1,327 8.63 154 4 cycles Wilson 1,164 386 302 4 cycles Total K 5 33,614 211 13 159.2 Carr 1 833 25.22 73 4 cycles Lathrop 1 779 7.65 233 4 cycles MacArthur 1,236 10 124 McFadden 1 748 24 18 72 Mendez' 1,300 12 108 Sierra 1 010 11 84 85 2 cycles Spurgeon 1,573 19 83 2 cycles Villa 1 168 11.25 104 Willard 1,623 979 166 Total 6 -8 13,270 130.93 101 4 the number below is Century 2,707 24 99 108 students per acre Chavez 243 2.47 98 adjusted by adding Middle College 236 0 NA students from new Mountain View* 240 2 44 98 schools and Saddleback 2,986 36 44 82 excluding students Santa Ana 3 449 24 3 142 from schools that Valley 2,829 50 02 57 share facilities Total 9 -12 12,690 140.66 90.2 Total All Grades 57,937 482.72 122.9 nt'w school counts are excluded from total enrollment but are included in adjusted students /acre :trident enrollment count has been excluded from adjusted students /acre PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC • Public Finance Urban Economics Development Services January 16, 2000 Mr Dana Ogdon Senior Project Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92730 • Re GP A-00-001 FEIS /PEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MC AS-Tustin Dear Mr Ogdon. Introduction At the request of counsel for Rancho Santiago Community College District ( "CCD ") Public Economics, Inc ( "PEI') has prepared this response ( "Response') to certain staff- comments set forth in Attachments 5 and 6 to the Agenda Report to City Manager William Huston, prepared by City staff in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment No 00 -001 and certification of the FE1S /FEIR by the City Council of the City of Tustin ('City) at the public hearing scheduled for January 16, 2001 In particular this Response addresses conunents of City staff that "there is no feasible way to evaluate indirect impacts of MCAS- Tustin on the CCD PEI is California's leading provider of redevelopment consulting services to the education community Since its founding m 1992, PEI has been involved in more than three - fourths of all redevelopment plans and amendments approved in the State of California - including a number of military base closures -on behalf of over 200 local school districts, community college districts, and county offices of education. Dante Gumucio CEO of PEI has personally advised over 200 school districts and community college districts regarding the impacts of growth and development in general, and redevelopment in particular Mr Gumucio has over 20 years academic and consulting experience. lie has been on the hill -tune economics faculty at California State University Fullerton (and taught part -time at Chapman University) where his classes 820 lV /own and Country Road Orange (1 92868 -4 71 1714) (47 -6.42 FAX 17N/647-6232 Vur1) ltic/c It eb. hhtp 2u wrn pub -econ cum • • mathematical 0 U G •C - - y c c N u • N 0, y ALA U F, TJ G U Ov U ; . cr al) c U 0 c , r 0 y. 0 y -, Lt. L U y U 0 c 4 F 0 « C, 0. 0 0. v. 0 d . ? o "0 .4 vi l 17 v c C v) 2-,. U 0 ' n a JQ v - G - W C G _ O 7- LA J T L-0 W O < ` '7 - 0 ? r U J 7 C r N C - ~ ? • N N - _ U U .. T = U G - c in G C. G y 7 G j U G - U 7 c at C _ n O a Bachelor of Science benefit -cost C 0 c 0 re N aJ 0 G - U F N G N EncL. U 'O G 7 co 0. ti ^ C a L tr. G c n ry v `' G v. u n G0 . 0 a. N O -. - • y ti 0.L = «, > C Y > u p 7. ^ • n 4 v v: O .L' U - T• U_ c: N ^ T d j u y G U 'U v U C. _ U J v "0 - 0 F � 0. J C 0 U 0 _ - LA n v n O r O O _ J L y _ i v, Ei 0. ? r 4. W o n 7 ! 0p G N J ) ci C d a� U 1 y 'L ..±. y C F. L J Z. U v L V C 7 U U U m • y _. J ^ ^L . � �C 01) _ w c J l V' q �. J U U n U t • L jG G C ^ =-. _ L N C . o L C , v C N U O T p T" cr, J y , 0 S. - G N � d 57- - CL ! j ` C 0 1 . a 0. y C y "d yL y 7 y U • - C b L C n d - - amN= C _G 0. U L U U G . j U V, . C r v=^ o r - . 0. 0 o y `. 74 0. N d - U tC' , y v V. C O U ' A L d _ -, N G - G > ..- 0 _r-.. j '� C O O G L W 0 2 4t1; 0 L m (-. =, N r _ �. 0. d ._ G 'D _ U �_ G - O N y 'J •a 7 V . r U F N ' G = i -. i- -J c va y C F C am v 7 '+ U IU . F L. --. � . .0 ' Just because • • Mr Dana Ogdon January 16 2001 Page iof10 community college districts. And PEI does not know why such impacts were excluded from the FEIS /FEIR for MCAS- Tustin. l- lowever even if CBA had never included such impacts in EIRs for other projects (which PE] believes not to be the case), there are a number of other environmental firms which have included such impacts in their environmental documentation, and which use similar methods in doing so However even if there were not one single universally recognized methodology for estimating such impacts, what is required by CEQA, as well as by case law and the State and federal constitutions is not universality but rntinnulity One such rational method is used by the California State Department of Finance and the State Chancellor s Office for California Community Colleges. This method involves applying credit enrollment rates' to projected future populations over the age of 18 within a college district s (primary) service area. Following is an analysis prepared by PEI in conjunction with Rancho Santiago CCD staffwhich utilizes this very method Analysis In projecting the impact on household formation of on -site employment at MCAS- Tustin, the FEIS /FEIR relies on the Updated Report on the Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the MCAS Tustin Site Upon Ilotischold Growth in the Santa Ana Unified School District ( "DMC Report ) prepared by Dennis Macheski Consulting ('DMC') in May 1999 Had student generation rates available from the CCD for college credit and adult education enrollment been combined with household projections from the DMC Report, the FEIS /FEIR could have included estimates of enrollment impact on the CCD Unfortunately no such impacts were estimated. As shown in Exhibit I the CCD s combined credit /adult education student enrollment rate is 01392 students per service area population. PEI and the CCD have used household projections contained in the FEIS /FEIR to project future student generation for the CCD From redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin. However household projections in the FEIS /FEIR were for Santa Ana Unified School District ( "SAUSD'), which has a smaller geographic area and resident population than the CCD Hence. PEI and the CCD have adjusted household projections for SAUSD for some scenarios to reflect the CCD's larger area. However the FEIS /PEIIZ greatly understates the true range of new households that will he generated within SAUSD by reuse of MCAS- Tustin. This is the result of 1110 FEIS /PEI R's ignoring certain basic economic principles related to job growth in Orange County and misinterpreting or misapplying other economic data. As more fully explained below if the FEIS /FEIR is corrected to properly apply such principles and • • Mr Dana Ogdon January 16, 2001 Page 4 of 10 data, the number of new households within the boundaries of the CCD generated by reuse ofMCAS- Tustin would range from 280 new households to 6 602 new households, which would increase student enrollment in the District by 303 to 2,270 new community college students. The FEIS /FEIR underestimates the number of jobs at 4JC,IS- Tustin that will be new to Orange County. Method #2 of the FEIS /FEIR estimates that redevelopment of MCAS - Tustin will generate only 88 new households within SAUSD This projection is based on the following assumptions' (i) 90 percent of the 24,852 jobs created on -site at MCAS -Tustin will involve firms which simply relocate from elsewhere in Orange County (ii) all such jobs will involve the same employees as previously and (iii) none of these same employees will relocate their residence in order to be closer to their place of work. However these assumptions arc simply untenable for at least four reasons. First, the FEIS /FEIR ignores the fact that at least 1 914 (7 8 percent) of the jobs to he created on -site at MCAS -Tustin are of such a sne specific nature that they could not possibly be 'rclocatcd' from somewhere else in the County (FEIS/FLIR at p 1 -18) The regional and community parks, the golf course, the learning village and housing facilities are unique land uses which are not at all suitable for relocation, as opposed to land uses which might house tenants that relocate from other buildings. We believe that this is an oversight of the FEIS /FEIR rather than an attempt to claim that it golf course, regional park, or other similar facility will actually he relocated to MCAS- Tustin. Correcting this oversight alone nearly tlnuLIc.c the impact projected in the FEIS /FEIR Many of the R & D or professional office jobs that will be created in the land use areas designated as commercial/husmess, commercial, and community core (these three land uses are projected to create 22,394 jobs out of a total of 24 852 jobs) may well relocate from elsewhere in the County -However many of the Jobs associated with the retail, wholesale, and discount businesses that are also projected for these land use areas will he new to the County Indeed, at least some of these jobs will he 'big box retail establishments such as Wal-Mart. Such large scale chain businesses are most likely to open new stores at hICAS- Tustin to serve areas that they did not previously serve (including the 12,500 new residents the FEIS /FEIR project will live at MCAS - Tustin) as opposed to closing a store and relocating it to MCAS - Tustin. Second, the FEIS/FE]R fails to provide otnV credible data to substantiate its claim that only 10% of the Dohs at MCAS- Tustin could" be new to Orange County i.e that 90 • • Mr Dana Ogdon January 16 2001 Page 5of10 percent of such jobs would be filled by current County residents. City staff has stated that this claim is based on interviews with research personnel, brokers, and staff economists at certain companies and agencies. However City staff fails to specifically identify any person interviewed or more importantly what questions such persons were asked or what assumptions they were asked to make in arriving at this 90 percent figure. No verifiable information regarding these supposed responses is provided in the FEIS /FEIR. Third, the FEIS /FEIR claims that not only will 90 percent of the jobs at MCAS- Tustin simply relocate from elsewhere within the County hut that such relocation will not have any impact on SAUSD In so doing, the FEIS /FEIR entirely ignores the phenomenon known to urban economists as 'back fill. The FEIS /FEIR could just as easily claim that the new housing units at MCAS -Tustin will be occupied by other residents of Orange County who move to MCAS- Tustin, but whose former homes will never be occupied by new residents. Of course such a claim would be inappropriate since the former hones of new Tustin residents are 'hack filled' by new occupants. The FEIS /FEIR appears to correctly accounts for the hackfill phenomenon when it comes to residential uses llowever the FEIS /FEIR appears to ignore the hackfill phenomenon when it comes to non - residential uses. With non - residential uses, hackfill occurs when commercial/industrial space previously occupied by businesses that relocate to new space is ultimately occupied by other firms new to the County (or by other firms that move from elsewhere in the County which in turn vacate space filled by firms from outside the County) By ignoring the hackfill phenomenon for non - residential uses, the FEIS /FEIR implicitly assumes that the 7 8 million square feet of business space vacated by businesses that allegedly relocate to MCAS -Tustin will remain vacant inilefintite /v Of course, this assumption is just as inappropriate for non - residential uses as for residential uses. Because of backfill, even if all new jobs at MCAS - Tustin went to existing workers in the County (which we dispute) there will still he substantial net additional impacts on total County employment. However the FEIS /FEIR fails to consider these additional impacts. Additional employment impacts will depend not only on the backfill, but on such Decors as the number of County residents currently (i) employed outside the County (ii) unemployed, or (iii) not in the labor force. However in claiming that 90 percent of the new jobs at MCAS - Tustin will he filled by persons who already have jobs in the County • • Mr Dana Ogdon January 16 2001 Page 6 of 10 the FEIS /FEIR not only ignores the backlit], it presents no analysis of any of these factors. As a result the 90 percent claim seems highly unlikely given that Orange County is a net exporter of jobs (i c. there are more jobs in the Lounty than there are employed County residents), unemployment rates are at historic lows, and labor force participation is at all time highs. Finally should any significant portion of the jobs at WAS-Tustin simply relocate from elsewhere in Orange County the FEIS /FEIR also ignores the likelihood that some of the workers who hold those jobs will relocate to SAUSD in order to be closer to their place of work. City stall-claims that the number of workers who do relocate to SAUSD to be closer to their place of work is negligible. However stall fills to provide any evidence to support such claim or to quantify the amount of relocating workers that they deem to be negligible. in light of the foregoing, we believe that a figure of at (east S0 percent- compared to the City's figure of 10 percent is much more reasonable for establishing the low end of the range of new jobs at MCAS- Tustin that will also be new to Orange County and that 100 percent is an appropriate figure for establishing the high end of the range The SO percent figure still appears highly conservative, since even if all on -site jobs are relocated from elsewhere in the County it assumes that either one -half the old space will not be backfilled, and /or one -half the new on -site jobs will be filled by persons previously employed outside the county or previously unemployed or not in the labor force Accordingly in Alternative Methods (13) and (D) below SO percent is substituted for the 10 percent figure used in Method i12 of the FEIS /FEIR as a low end measure of the percentage of jobs projected to be filled by employees who are new to Orange County The FE /S /FEIR fails lo include indirect and induced jobs in all opts dlethods: Method lit of the FEIS /FEIR properly notes that on -site jobs at MCAS- Tustin will have a 'multiplier' effect; that for every on -site job at MCAS-Tustin, there will be a combined total of 0 61 additional off -site jobs created by firms that (i) sell to or buy from on -site firms (indirect jobs), and (ii) produce or sell goods to new employees (induced jobs) However Method NI of the FEIS /FEIR entirely ignores the impacts associated with such indirect or induced jobs (DMC Report pp. 3 -4 6). City staff has stated that Method i12 was intended 'to calculate direct and indirect employment that would occur from implementation of the project. while that was not the intent of Method ill However this results in the anomalous situation in which Method N2, which includes direct and indirect (i e multiplier) effects, generates jeerer impacts • • Mr Dana Ogdon January 16, 2001 Page 7 of 10 than Method Ill which ignores multiplier effects If the City expects there to he multiplier effects, the only meaningful way to bracket a range of impacts is to show multiplier effects in all scenarios. Moreover since multiplier effects result from direct employment impacts, to exclude multiplier effects from Method tl I because it uses total on -site employment 1101 direct impacts, invalidates the usefulness of Method (11 for bracketing impacts. In addition, City staff has stated that "to use a multiplier for (Method] lit would result in identical conclusions for both [Methods]." This is clearly not the case as long as direct employment" in Method #1 is assumed to reflect the worst case of 1110 percent of on -site jots (as currently shown in that scenario and recommended by PEI on the previous page) rather than 10 percent as shown in Method 112. If the same 0 61 multiplier for these indirect or induced jobs used in Method 112 is applied to Method 1/1 the number of new students generated within CCD increases from 188 new students to 103 new students The FEIS /FEIR improperly utilizes the household Capture figure from OCP 96 in each of its Methods: The FEIS /FEIR references the following statistic from OCP 96 '1 8% of the housing growth in Orange County from 2000 -2020 will be captured by Santa Ana. In each of the two methodologies it uses for projecting the number of new students within SAUSD the FEIS /FEIR misapplies this statistic by assuming that only 4 0 percent of the workers taking the new Jobs created at MCAS- Tustin will live in homes located within Santa Ana. The household location of workers is based on two major factors. (11 commuting patterns and (ii) housing affordability Neither commuting patterns nor housing affordability is directly dependent on the number of homes being created in Santa Ana relative to the number of homes being created elsewhere in Orange County Therefore. the 1 8 percent figure from OCP 96, which estimates the percentage of all housing growth countywide that will be captured by Santa Ana between 2000 and 2020 bears no direct correlation to the number of workers who fill the new jobs created at MCAS- Tustin and establish new households in Santa Ana. Moreover the OCP 96 figure in no way considers the type of jobs that will be created at MCAS- Tustin. As stated above, a significant number of such Jobs are service, retail, clerical, warehouse, or other similar types of jobs that tend to offer moderate pay at hest • • Mr Dana Ogdon January 16, 2001 Page 8 of 10 However housing to he constnictcd at MCAS- Tustin is predominately upscale, single family housing that will invariably be beyond the economic means of many of the workers who fill these types of jobs (FE1S /FEIR at p. 4 -20). As a result workers filling these jobs will need to find affordable housing in other areas and communities near MCAS- Tustin. Accordingly it is very important that the data used to estimate the number of workers at MCAS-Tustin who are likely to establish new households in Santa Ana account for housing affordability in Santa Ana and other communities around MCAS - Tustin. By including data tabulated specifically to identify cormuting patterns -and by inference, housing affordability - Census data prove a much more appropriate source than OCP 96 for estimating the number of workers who will establish new households in Santa Ana. Census data from 1990 show that out of 178,187 jobs in Santa Ana, 45 414 workers (25 49 percent) also live in Santa Ana. In other words, 25 49 percent of jobs in Santa Ana are tilled by workers who found Santa Ana to be within a reasonable commuting distance and to provide affordable housing. Census data also show that of 1 123 048 jobs in Orange County 81 313 workers (7.24 percent) live in Santa Ana. Since MCAS - Tustin is located within and directly adjacent to SAUSD it is expected that a similar percentage of workers from jobs at MCAS Tustin will reside within SAUSD Jn other words, it is prudent to estimate that somewhere between 7.24 percent and 25 49 percent of workers will reside within SAUSD based on Census data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns, and by inference, housing affordability The boundaries of the CCD include all of SAUSD The comparative size of the two districts is indicated by their respective assessed valuations, which in FY 2000 -01 totaled $35.2 billion for the CCD and $15 5 billion for the SAUSD Nonetheless, PEI and CCD staff have adjusted the Census -based estimates for SAUSD of 7.24 percent and 25 49 percent by much less than the relative difference in assessed values. The adjusted estimates for the CCD conservatively range from 9 S percent to 30 percent. Accordingly in Alternative Methods (B), (C), (D), and (E) below the figures of 9 S percent and 30 percent derived by adjusting the 1990 Census for SAUSD have been substituted for the 4 percent figure that the DMC Report derived from OCP 96 Alternative methodologies for estimating the number of additional students to he generated in CCD by redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin Alternative Method (Al This alternative method consists of Method 1/I from the FEIS /FEIR modified to include the additional indirect /induced jobs which the DMC 1 • Mr Dana Ogdon January 16 2001 'Lge 9 of 10 Report included m its Method 42 but unjustifiably excluded from Method Hl the number of indirect or induced jobs that is utilized in this alternative method is the same number that is estimated by the City in the FEISiFEIR (FEIS /FEIR at p 4 18) By simply mcludmg the number of new students that will be generated by these Indirect or induced jobs, the FEIS /FEIIt would have a projection of "103 new CCD students Alternative Method (8) flits alternative method is based on Method 42 from the FEIS /111R moth two modifications First, it substitutes 50 percent for the 10 percent figure that the DMC Report used to estimate the number of jobs created at MCAS Tustin th'it esould be new to Orange County Second it substitutes the 9 50 percent figure derived from the 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure used by the 1 LIS /I EIR to estimate the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS 1 ustm that will locate within CCD These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS Tustin to merease to 359 4Iternotive Method (C) fhis alternative method is based on Method 41 from the FE1SII ElR with two modifications First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the tot al number of jobs created by MCAS Tustin Second, it uses the 9 50 percent figure to estim nc the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS Tustin than will locate within CCD these two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS 1 ustm to increase to 719 Alternate ?e Method (D) !his alternative method is based on Alcthod 42 from the FEIS /f OR with two modifications First it uses the 50 percent figure to estimate the number of jobs created it MCAS Tustin that will be new to Orange County Second it substitutes the 25 49 percent figure derived from 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure utilized b) the FEIS /I EIR to estimate the number of new households created bin redevelopment of MCAS Tustin that will locate within CCD These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS Tustin to increase to 1 135 Alternative Method (E) 1-his alternative method is based on Method 41 from the FEIS /FEIR with two modifications First it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total number of jobs created by MCAS Tustin Second it uses the 30 00 percent figure to estimate the number of new household created by redevelopment of MCAS Tustin th u will locate within CCD these two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS f ustin to increase to 2,270 • • estimate the :/{7.!/\ / t ° * ` / r. ct 0 j 0 .Q x•E0 / / \/a 2\ 2 } << It ~ \ .d ,1 #°\ � - / /= , - g f \)/ {0 ___ ® -0e =2 / /&co ®w //\\- /. - 0 \ 0 u 0 / § }] -0 // ft \ § \� Vi \ \ \ \\ C. -• .E 0 - 0, �>% //> PI \\§\}//ƒ }[(j /4- �{» { /J�`« \) \5.;2.[7.2 analysis demonstrates that \ 6 >�0� .60 tS5 4 0 6 LOO \ t c 500 Ot 0 T:516 9Zr t1 yc% ti OL 11t Ltt g6ti L S 166 £ St 0 cSt t ropy 1cS tt w.- uno'J a8uei tivawholdw3 �aW aan�Wat1V co.y,4str' uodsavoopoixo 1eJ �Si33 °� SP P °Niay9 S �3 �� ° b n Poyta'i Z5 P3g1aV. Y N 5133 5.1:31:112.11 ee4�a11 � eu3a11� ) (91'00 aan Pitt Ca) µol�fl Pau0.?nO�l33iS133 1uox) tu P °ya u g�� ua wd0 a kepa s atawoj luuunioD otri s . 0�put' aoJ paataa° a aQ of o nuliuw 1)S3 osalooi °p °tkla `a vq L 3Yall eC3