HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 8 E. TUSTIN DEVEL 02-19-91DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 19, 199
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CONSENT CALENDAR NO. 8
2-19-91
Inter - Com
EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT MONITORING AND ANNUAL REVIEW
REPORT FOR 1989-1990 REVIEW PERIOD
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND
The East Tustin Development Agreement between the City of Tustin and
the Irvine Company was originally adopted on October 22, 1986 as a
mechanism for implementing the East Tustin Specific Plan. The
Agreement identified phased public improvements and required
dedications to be accomplished by the Specific Plan, assured adequate
funding of certain improvements, clarified the respective
responsibilities of the City and the developer, and provided a program
for monitoring and controlling the impacts of the project on the
City's fiscal resources so that the phased completion of the project
would not result in a negative fiscal impact on the City.
Pursuant to Section 3.1 of the Development Agreement, the developer's
performance under the Agreement was to be reviewed at least every 12
months. Evidence of the developer's good faith compliance with the
items of the agreement would be demonstrated by evidence of the
following:
1. Conformance with the requirements of the Specific Plan and
Development Agreement;
2. Conformance with the adopted phasing schedule; and
3. Conformance with the fiscal impact model which requires a minimum
one-to-one cost vs. revenue ratio.
All of the detailed findings and exhibits are compiled in the attached
East Tustin Development Monitoring and Annual Review Report. Staff
believes that the developer has acted in good faith in compliance with
the terms of the Development Agreement and no cause for further action
at this time is considered necessary. The remainder of this report
summarizes the staff findings presented in the attached report.
City Council Report
East Tustin Development 1989-90 Review
February 19, 1991
I Page 2
ANALYSIS
As discussed in more detail in the attached report, the -annual review
includes three major components. Each of these components are brief ly
summarized below:
1. Compliance with Development Agreement and Specific Plan
This component involves a review of the Development Agreement and
Specific Plan. Staff has continued to work with the Irvine Company
and various other developers in processing Subdivision Maps and
Building Permits for specific developments within the East Tustin
area. All of these projects are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and
no known violations of the Specific Plan have occurred. Any
variations from the requirements of the Specific Plan have been
processed through the appropriate mechanism, an administrative
adjustment or variance. Both of these procedures are considered
acceptable in the Plan and by State law.
2. Development Phasing Schedule
The overall fiscal impact of development of the East Tustin area was
of substantial concern to the City of Tustin in negotiating proposed
land uses in the East Tustin area. As part of the planning process a
fiscal impact analysis was conducted for the purposes of evaluating
the planned development to determine if the project would result in
any substantial negative impact to the City during the project phasing
or at completion of the development. It was, therefore, the intent of
the established phasing schedule to balance the development of uses so
that revenues to the City would exceed costs. With the current number
of auto dealers operating and the square footage of commercial
development open for business in East Tustin, the developer would be
authorized to occupy up to 5,366 residential units. Only 2,008
residential units were released for occupancy as of November 1, 1990;
therefore, the developer is in compliance with the phasing schedule.
3. Fiscal Impact
While closely related to the phasing schedule, the remaining component
of the required annual review goes one step further in analyzing the
impact of the project on the City financially. As part of the
contract with Stanley Hoffman who prepared the Fiscal Impact Report
(FIR) for the East Tustin Specific Plan, a computer generated model
was provided to the Community Development Department and has been used
by staff to determine compliance with this portion of the annual
review. All reports generated by the model are provided as exhibits
in the attached East Tustin Development Monitoring and Annual Review
Report.
Community Development Department
City Council Report
East Tustin Development 1989-90 Review
February 19, 1991
Page 3
After considering all of the development related figures, staff has
found that the model has estimated a 1.56 cost -to -revenue ratio for
the official monitoring period. For every value equal.to or greater
than one, the number represents either a break even (1.0) or excess
revenue (values over 1.0).. So far, the estimated costs of the
development have not exceeded the anticipated revenue; therefore, the
developer is in compliance with the fiscal element of the annual
review.
It is important to note that the fiscal model is based upon
assumptions made in 1985 and do not necessarily reflect the actual
revenues and costs incurred by the developer and the City.
Additionally, the revenues generated from taxes such as retail sales
are not remitted to the City until the State Franchise Tax Board has
completed their accounting process and remits the funds to the City.
This usually occurs at least two to three calendar quarters after the
funds are reported. Therefore, the numbers generated by the Fiscal
Impact Model do not show actual revenues received by the City, but
serve as a frame work for determining the project's overall fiscal
balance for each review period.
CONCLUSION
Based upon consideration of all three components of the annual review,
staff believes that the Irvine Company has exercised good faith
compliance with the East Tustin Development Agreement. All components
of staff review indicated that the developer has met or exceeded the
minimum requirements of the Agreement. Staff suggests that the City
Council receive and file this report with the expectation of receiving
a follow-up report each year as the Community Development Department
updates the annual review pursuant to the Agreement.
r r %
Daniel Fox Christine A. Shinglen
Senior Planner Director of Communit Development
Attachment: Annual Review Report
CAS:DF:nm/eastust.rpt
Community Development Department
East Tustin
Development Monitoring
and Annual Review Report
OFFICIAL REPORTING PERIOD:
November 1,1989 -November 1, 1990
Prepared by
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92680
(714) 544-8890
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Conformance with Requirements of Specific Plan 1
III. Conformance with Phasing Schedule and Fiscal Impact Model 3
IV. Conformance with the Requirements of the Development Agreement 13
V. Conclusion 15
VI. Appendix I - Cost and Revenue Assumptions 16
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1.
East Tustin Fiscal Area
4
Figure 2.
Tustin Auto Center Map and Development Status
9
Table I.
East Tustin Phasing Schedule
3
Table II.
Actual Development Activites in East Tustin
5
Table III.
Comparison with Adopted Phasing Schedule
6
Table IV.
Status of East Tustin Residential Projects
7
Table V.
Summary of Recurring Revenues and Costs
10
Table VI.
Summary of Fiscal Impacts
I I
Table VII.
Fiscal Model Input Categories
12
1. INTRODUCTION
In March of 1986, the Tustin City Council approved the East Tustin Specific Plan (Specific Plan)
for the project area known as Tustin Ranch. The East Tustin Development Agreement between
the City of Tustin and The Irvine Company was subsequently approved in November of 1986 as a
mechanism for implementing the Specific Plan and ensuring compliance with the requirements of
the Environmental and Fiscal Impact reports for the project. The Agreement provides for: l) the
implementation of phased public improvements; 2) requirements to accomplish certain dedica-
tions; 3) adequate funding for certain improvements; 4) the identification 'of the respective
responsibilities of the City and developer; and 5) a program for monitoring and controlling the fiscal
impacts of the project.
Pursuant to Section 3.1 of the Agreement, the developer's performance under the Agreement is to
be reviewed at least every 12 months. Evidence of the developer's good faith compliance with the
terms of the agreement would be demonstrated by evidence of the following:
1. Conformance with the requirements of the Specific Plan;
2. Conformance with the approved phasing plan and fiscal impact analysis; and
3. Conformance with the provisions of the Development Agreement.
The purpose of this report is to provide the necessary information in order to assist the City Council
in undertaking this annual review. All figures used in the review are based upon the actual records
on file with the Community Development Department as of November 1, 1990. Utilizing computer
generated estimates, staff has also provided preliminary projections for anticipated development
during the next review period (November 1990 - November 1991). These projections were based
upon current project approvals and construction activities.
11. CONFORMANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFIC
The Specific Plan establishes the policies, guidelines and regulations that govern development in
the Tustin Ranch area. Development proposals are submitted to the Community Development
Department and reviewed by the City's Design Review Committee to ensure compliance with the
Specific Plan and Tustin City Code. The Design Review Committee is comprised of representatives
from the City's Community Development, Public Works, Community Services and Police depart-
ments and the Orange County Fire Department. Each project is then presented to the Planning
Commission, and in some cases the City Council, for final determination of conformance with the
Specific Plan, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Subdivision Map Act.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Specific Plan was prepared and certified in
accordance with CEQA. This EIR identified several mitigation measures to reduce potential
environmental impacts associated with development of the Specific Plan. Some of the common
mitigation measures related to individual projects which are considered during project review
include conformance with the Specific Plan monitoring and limiting of construction hours, noise
testing, provisions for pedestrian circulation and other modes of transportation and development
limits under the Browning Corridor.
The Specific Plan also identifies provisions for public infrastructure such as roads, flood control
devices, sewer and water facilities, utilities, parks, schools, and other public facilities. Since the last
reporting period, the developer and the City have continued to provide many of the public facilities
in the project area, some of which are listed below. One of the more notable completions during
this review period was the Jamboree Road connection with the City of Orange in August of 1990.
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86-2
1. Jamboree Road between Tustin Ranch Road and north City boundary.
2. F06B01 Storm Drain Facility.
THE IRVINE COMPANY
1. Greenway Drive
2. Gallery Way
3. Rawlings Way
4. Robinson Drive
5. Keller Drive
6. Rawlings west of Tustin Ranch Road
To date, staff has reviewed all plans and supervised construction activities for conformance with the
Specific Plan. No known violations of the Specific Plan, City Code, Subdivision Map Act or CEQA
have occurred. The developer has complied with established development standards, policies,
programs, and guidelines called out in the Specific Plan.
2
III. CONFORMANCE WITH PHASING SCHEDULE AND
FISCAL IMPACT MODEL
Another key element of the annual review process required by the Development Agreement is a
review of actual development activities for comparison with the approved phasing schedule and
fiscal impact model prepared by Stanley Hoffman and Associates. The phasing schedule was
developed for the purpose of ensuring that anticipated revenue producing uses are encouraged and
provided (such as auto dealers, retail space and hotel rooms) at a rate which ensures a fiscal balance
between those uses and the cost generating uses such as residential units. For the purposes of the
phasing schedule and the fiscal impact model, a slightly different project area was developed in
order to include the Phase One Residential Area and Tustin Auto Center. This area is identified
as the East Tustin Fiscal Area and is shown in Figure 1 on page 4. Both the Phasing Schedule and
fiscal impact model components of the annual review are discussed separately below.
PHASING SCHEDULE
Using information maintained by the Community Development Department, actual development
figures were compared with the phasing schedule contained in the Development Agreement.
Table I below is the approved phasing schedule which is contained in the Development Agreement.
Table II on page 5 shows actual development performance including the year and number of
TABLE I
EAST TUSTIN PHASING
CUM.
DWELLING DWELLING
UNITS UNITS
SCHEDULE
SQ. FT.
RETAIL
CUM.
SQ. FT.
RETAIL
AUTO
CENTER
DEALERS
HOTEL
ROOMS
955
955
0
0
3
0
740
1,695
0
0
4
0
1,095
2,790
0
0
2
0
1,303
4,093
400,000
400,000
1
0
1,273
5,366
400,000
800,000
0
250
1,192
6,558
0
800,000
0
0
1,212
7,770
0
800,000
0
0
339
8,109
80,000
880,000
0
0
336
8,445
0
880,000
0
0
187
8,632
220,000
1,100, 000
0
0
188
8,820
0
1,100, 000
0
0
180
9,000
0
1,100, 000
0
0
9,000
9,000
1,100, 000
10
250
source:
East Tustin Development Agreement
3
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL
NON-RESIDENTIAL
ESELEME"T... J<,OUL
I . s ' W, I« a.,E scIIoa
.s ..c.. scHOOL
W PI -AM P4
C< �Gpyy,,,.TY FACIIITV
r�< .Elc.leo.�000 <a•
M OE QAL COI—` -A
.1.. U4E
''�!CpyylMlT v/i,1ILT U
..KEL 90�Anr
/.-�. s—E, IION
l qE rypNµ 1FMl
,Oc ..wCEI DESIW..,k
r..c .,ET .c,lEs E.uuo
NOTES 4!
PHASE 4
CP PHASE 3
PHASE 4 Es T\
PHASE 3 .— '•l '..` /� _ s� \`...
-�• Ao TS.
Figure 1 - East Tustin Fiscal Area
4
completed residential units, commercial
square footage and auto dealers. Table' III
on page 6 provides a comparison between
the phasing schedule and actual develop-
ment. Both Tables II and III estimate devel-
opment activity during the next reporting
period (November 1990 - November 1991)
to anticipate continued compliance.
In all cases, the definitions stated in the
Development Agreement were applied in
order to determine the actual value credited
to commercial uses. This means that for
auto dealers, one dealer is counted per site.
Additional credits may be applied to one
site if more than one vehicle type is sold and
if the average per vehicle type income is
more than $10,900,000 in 1985 dollars. If
the sales are adequate to justify additional
dealer credit, one credit per $10,900,000
(1985 dollars) would be applied. No dealers
have received more than one credit. The
residential units are counted as of the date
of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Retail square footage is counted for the
total square footage listed on the approved
building permit as of the date the retail
tenant is issued a Certificate of Occupancy.
The Agreement also makes provisions that,
at the discretion of the Developer, retail
square footage, auto dealers, and hotel rooms
of equal revenue may be interchanged at
any period according to the following for-
mula: 1,000 square feet of retail = .976 hotel
rooms or .0135 auto dealers; one hotel room
= .0139 auto dealers or 1,034 square feet of
retail; one auto dealer = 71.81 hotel rooms
or 74,251 square feet of retail. However,
according to the Agreement, an entire reve-
nue use as shown in the approved phasing
plan and as indicated in Section 3.8.2 of the
Specific Plan cannot be completely elimi-
nated through the application of this for-
mula without an amendment of the Specific
Plan. No interchange of use was calculated
for the 1989-1990 review period.
TABLE II
ACTUAL
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN
EAST TUSTIN
CUM.
CUM.
CUM.
YEAR
DWELLING DWELLING SQ. FT.
SQ -FT AUTO
AUTO
BUILT*
UNITS UNITS RETAIL
RETAIL DEALERS
DEALERS
1985/86
0 0 0
0 3
3
1986/87
373 373 0
0 1
4
1987/88
363 736 1941111
194,111 2
6
1988/89
952 11688 344,758
538,869 2
8
1989/90
320 2,008 184,667:
723,536. 3
11
.............................
1990/91 * *
628 2,636 30,000
753,536 0
11
*
Review period runs from November 1 to November 1.
**
All figures for 1990-1991 are estimates based upon project approvals and
current construction activities.
source: Community Devlopment Department Records
As evidenced by the information provided in this review and identified in Table III, the developer
would have authorization to occupy to a maximum of 5,366 residential units during the November
1990 - November 1991 review period. This amount would exceed the cumulative total of 5,234 units
(2,008 completed, 2,896 approved and 330 proposed) as of November 1, 1990 in Phases I, II, III and
IV. Although anticipated 1990-1991 construction activities show that additional commercial
square footage is scheduled to open in the near future, without the addition of hotel rooms or an
amendment to the adopted phasing schedule, no additional residential units may be occupied over
the current residential development authorization of 5,366 units.
Supplemental information has been provided in Table IV on pages 7 and 8 which shows the more
specific status of residential projects in the four phases of the East Tustin project as of November
11 1990. The Table identifies the number of units which have been approved, under construction,
completed or currently in the Design Review process. Figure 2 on page 9 indicates the location and
development status of each of the auto dealerships in the Tustin Auto Center as of November 1,
1990.
5
Based on staff review of this information, the total number of allowed units (5,366) and that
constructed (2,008) is consistent with the amount of retail space and auto dealers as provided by the
phasing schedule. It is anticipated that during the 1990 - 1991 review period, an additional 628
residential dwelling units would be completed for a cumulative total of 2,636 units which would still
be consistent with the current authorization for 5, 366 dwelling units. Although anticipated activity
during the 1990 -1991 review period would add additional square footage, without the addition of
hotel rooms or an amendment to the adopted phasing schedule and/or an interchange of revenue
generating uses, the Development Agreement would not authorize the cumulative total of residen-
tial units to exceed 5,366. -
TABLE III
COMPARISON WITH ADOPTED PHASING SCHEDULE
YEAR TYPE OF WORK
BUILT* COMPLETED
1985-1986 3 AUTO DEALERS
1986-1987 373 UNITS
1 AUTO DEALER
TOTAL TOTAL
UNITS UNITS AVAILABLE
ALLOWED BUILT UNITS
1,695 0 1,695
1,695 373 1,322
1987-1988 363 U N ITS 1,695
2 AUTO DEALERS
194,111 SQ. FT. RETAIL
1988-1989 952 UNITS 2, 790
2 AUTO DEALER
344,758 SQ. FT. RETAIL
1989-1990 320 UNITS 5, 366
3 AUTO DEALER
184,667 SQ. FT. RETAIL
hKV7,
959
1,102
3,358 1
1990-1991 * * 628 UNITS 5, 366 2,636 2,730
30,000 SQ. FT. RETAIL
* Review period runs from November 1 to November 1.
** All figures for 1990-1991 are estimates based upon project approvals and
current construction activities.
source: Community Development Department Records
6
TABLE IV
STATUS OF EAST TUSTIN
RESIDENTIAL
PROJECTS
NOVEMBER 11 1990
UNITS
UNITS
PROJECT
APPROVED
UNIT TYPE
BUILT
PROJECT STATUS
SHADOWBROOK
218
Single Family
202
Complete
(Tracts 12719, 12868, 13044)
SYCAMORE GLEN (TR 12732)
248
Condo
248
Complete
RANCHO ALISOL (TR 12759)
356
Apts/Condo
344
Under Construction
PHASE I TOTALS:
822
794
RANCHO MADERAS (TR 13030)
266
Apts/Condo
266
Complete
RANCHO TIERRA (TR 13038)
252
Apts/Condo
252
Complete
ALMERIA (TR 13053)
118
Single Family
118
Complete
MARICOPA (TR 13080)
100
Single Family
98
Model Buildout
MONTEREY (TR 13094)
103
Single Family
103
Complete
ARCADA (TR 13096)
237
Condo
117
Under Construction
SEVILLA (TR 13106)
110
Single Family
Attached
105
Model Buildout
ESTANCIA (TR 13161)
145
Condo
145
Complete
RANCHO MARIPOSA (TR 13735)
238
Apts/Condo
0
Construction
PHASE 11 TOTALS:
1,569
1,204
TRACT 13701/13990 (Akins)
161
Single Family
6
Construction
TRACT 13733 (Bren Co.)
73
Single Family
0
Design Review
TRACT 13734 (Bren Co.)
118
Single Family
0
Construction
TRACT 13746 (Akins)
316
Apts/Condo
0
Construction
TRACT 13786 (Akins)
306
Apts/Condo
0
Construction
TRACT 13788 (Western National)
170
Apts/Condo
0
Construction
TRACT 13796 (Bren Co.)
108
Condo
4
Construction
TABLE IV - CONTINUED
STATUS OF EAST TUSTIN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
NOVEMBER 11 1990
UNITS UNITS
PROJECT APPROVED UNIT TYPE BUILT
TRACT 13824 (Regis)
317
TRACT 13835 (RGC)
282
TRACT 13902 (Bren-Osgood)
115
TRACT 13908 (Bramelea)
97
TRACT 14068 (Lyon)
200
TRACT 14110 (LDM)
129
TRACT 14168 (Bren-Osgood)
137
TRACT 14188 (Stand. Pacific)
57
PHASE III TOTALS.
2,586.
source: Community Development Records
FISCAL IMPACT MODEL
PROJECT STATUS
Apts/Condo
0
Construction
Condo
0
Construction
Single Family
0
Construction
Single Family
0
Construction
Condo
0
Plan Check
Condo
0
Plan Check
Single Family
0
Plan Check
Single Family
0
Construction
10
Single Family 0 Design Review
Condo 0 Map Approved
0
The Fiscal Impact Model (FIR) is based upon a computerized model which was part of the original
consultant contract with Stanley Hoffman and Associates. A copy of the model was made available
to the Community Development Department for use when conducting the annual review and
operates on the Community Development Department's computer system. Staff uses the model
to determine whether there is a fiscal balance between the cost and revenue generating factors
associated with development in the East Tustin Fiscal Area (Figure 1).
The model uses the actual number of residential dwelling units and commercial square footage
which were completed during; certain reporting years and then estimates the costs of providing City
services to the East Tustin area. It also estimates the revenues received by the sales tax and other
fees associated with the commercial and residential development. The cost and revenue assump-
tions required to be used in the annual review are the original assumptions stated in the FIR. These
assumptions are provided in Appendix I of this report.
Section 1.9 of the Development Agreement requires that the project maintain a fiscally balanced
cost to revenue ratio so that the City's financial resources are not drained by providing costly public
improvements and services to the residential and commercial properties in the project area. In all
years, the Tustin Ranch project shows a positive fiscal impact to the City. A positive impact is
determined by the value of the Recurring Revenue/Expenditure Ratio (last line of figures in Table
V). Avalue of 1.0 is considered a one-to-one cost to revenue balance, and values over 1.0 represent
an excess of revenues over costs. The figures contained in the last line of Table V on page 10
indicates that a minimum of 1.0 cost to revenue ratio has been attained. The ratio for this reporting
period is 1.56. Since_ this ratio is above 1.0, substantial conformance with the fiscal impact
component of the Annual Review can be determined. Table VI on page 11 includes a summary of
the fiscal impacts for each reporting year. These impacts are provided in percentages of each major
cost and revenue source.
1987) ! 1
1 �
1 ,'1
1 1
p
I INFINITY
O
i
J
Q
MacPHERSON 1 (1990)
_
J
0
_
/ ♦ ¢
FORD j
Z
♦ 0
(1989)
1 Y
CC
Z
cHOWARD
a
iANTA ANA
.INCOLN
LEASING
(1989)
TUSTIN
E NO SCALE
AERCURY
��
FUT \
;1990) ♦
i
C
NISSAN
(1989)
1 DEALE
1 ��
TUSTIN
_
- -
DODGE
(1986)
�; \
MacPHERSON 1
TOYOTA
DEALER STORAGE SITE
(1988)
LEXXUS (1990) ♦` ,/
INTERSTATE 5
Figure 2 - Tustin Auto Center Map and Development Status
9
TABLE V
SUMMARY OF RECURRING REVENUES & COSTS
�t 11
—MNOt,- PMt,- in + t-
—�-h-PMt� + W
O
c0
N
pp.. 11
O� it
O.Or ONtn WNIn + N
OPII1W't0InInw + to
W In tf10CDP M 0 m
NMOf"O
+
Ol
'
11'
11
OPPOP01Otntn + (�
t�OP�.t'OM + N
to
11
11
O�M['�1O�t�f�W.- + P
Ln , (� t1- N + M
OInWN�0 +
tf1 10 N tf\ P + O
co
M
•r N + .0
dq + 64
r r + �
44 + 64
r"
64
M 11
Oincua un 0, + in
NIn1`PNP + In
MMS CD C) + —
O
M
10
M
O� II
O 11
Mtl1 .C)Cj NN �t
N W% 00 -�t (- P O. r- + Ln
Ln O V1 r- 1-- 'O + in
O
� If
co %0'Ttn
`Ot- P
M
�}
� � � c
I�MOcO1OO
r W + M
t!1
It
csM +
t
.
`- N' Ln
69 � 69
69 + 64
to
N 11
NMNO1-w10
WO`'ON ' P
Ln Ln C) � O
N
M
O
Ln
P 11
P It
Ln 0O `O O 't O � 't 0, + O
M . 'o 00 co O �O N M +
-tr CIO M Ln
10
11
O •pe -O CO InNMr- + O
Mtl1P-tMLn
00
11
00 CD-tf-MOtn + M
't—MWW'O + M
P
'11
co 'o I,- J�-<- + r-
ON— MU1 + �t
�O
N Lnk!±
+ to
iii
64
It
01 11
PN-'tOf'-%OO
NNinCDWP'OPN + I,-
�,o -P co W + N
rWLA00-7 + M
co
M
r-
�t
PC>
-4 W NMPM N
Ln CD Ln Co 00
�t
�-
It
11
i
N N co ONM(V -,t 0 M
0101 co NM P
In
11
M Ln (D UA lLnti'OO ti
tiCo W W MM '
ON
II
in M M N
'
toto
N + M
+ N
j
+ 64
+ to
lA
O 11
P II
in COPOtnOM + N
'O In M � in 01 W 't
O'om0, -
M 'o - C> 0,
`0
in
P II
W W M Nif11ON-sN
O't —�inN + Ln
+
f`
II
. . . . +
tfl�t�t OOOO-t +
. .
NPW.t.Of�
II
PMco + ti
0, —'o coM`O + 'O
O
11
M N N 1 0
to ti N N + P
64 +
4A +
64
6A
P Il
M co Olnin0, s + P
sco nPPln + r-
'oMPO�tP + i%
f`
0`Ln
co 11
P 11
M10C> 00000) 0 + �t
10MIn OcVOOP + to
011001 P
to
'
11
0O Nr' ON'ONN + 'O
N
M
11
O Ifl ti
(` W t(1 W W O
(�
t-
11
M Ln + N
J S (NJ Ln
+
to
tA +
+ tq
dq
+ 69
W 11
fl- CD cn tL % t`C)LA + P
WNNNN W + -t
-4
N
�t
O
Co 11Il1Mt-
P'�
ON00%OO.t + -t
OMS - - OcmPW r- + C0
"LnC\j - WN + N
PN co N1OJ M
t!1
N
II
O Is 1f� t�: 111 (\ P M + P
O O �O �t �1 Ifl + N
t`
11
�t --00 -M + O
-.tcoCD + -t
N `-
`O
11
�- P ' M
64
64 + to
64
ti II
N�IOO�C)- Mr +'0
0`0`�W� i
0, r
ti
O
W 11
N1toO toO�1f��S + O�
t -N 00 00 N
W
P 11
f` �t0 O—M'otO
N
11+
It
—IS 1 IO 10ca, m, + C�1
+
Nt�—sf�P + -.TW
W Ln M + co
co
ti
Ln �-- M M 1��••
Ln
64 N
N
69
64
6ii
10 11
r POOtf%t00O Ln
'tPpN
`0
N
W If
P 11
M + 1000
U1 OO WP -
N100 Mit + W
` W r0 +
—OP NPO
Ln + `O
01100 't P M
M
It
EA N M
64— 14,N + O
M
N
(n 11
M + M
+ bq
b4
to
N
0
O
Z
Q
�
cn
U
L
W
U
Y
U
+
Z
X # 41 U
w
# ate+ Z
a
EIVU
w
cn X
C)
a, 4.1 rn W
C w X /o
X
> C U +J L C
co
U
w
\
d co C O1 v N
O Cl
cn
U
c
ckf L -Y aW 4 c v
v ami c N
c
C)
cy) 7 C O 7 VI a
U) > c O 4
U
w
C T U 0 U U >
X 4- U U E 7 Or
X
C L-
•L cn 01 dl }- O
C
U
L (o L 0.- O L C w
Y rn > U U
L O v
•�
L
LL-
O
L 4, 0) cA L O N
7 1] X s + C/ V- V- >
L
:3 O
U > O co C cn cn 4) N
U 3 +� tL O co
7
c
C
r
a Y L s� rA •� Q1 cn L Y
w L a N t 7 C) O
D1 C L 1-•
w IL U C - a O
U
v
••--
Q
a cncncUcrnL f-
U• -QCs
E C >• v
�
L
7
f
# a -• ti! C •-- C O L N
# O co -� N cn co > cot
# -�
# -- -0 E (0 41 L
0)
U
L (u co L 7 L d t N
0 7 0-----
z
N
a w(nI--mu-0�UO
aaU2ULL
1()
TABLE VI
SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTS
11
o go ea°atg� oe
�t 11 �t O�COOC10�r-O• ' O
e 'It a"!
��or
V17O tl�N , O
P 11 . , .
. ,
0, 11 M—N—O�NNM ' O
—cm UN—OP ' O
11
11 '
e E 3� e � dam° 2•: 2•� % i� ice° �
is : i� e � dam° :C d�
M 11 0,In0, 00'0o0%0N , O
It co coOlIt O
O. it O
c C) C6 , O
r- 11 N �t � � ' O
M M �"' •" ' O
11 '
d� 3� o P \ \ a`e d� 3"e a. e°
d•e d•: de d� d� o e o\\°
N 11 Ncr10•rlOLr! �t00 , O
�! fnNtn ' O
,
0, ONM ' O
C)u1 N< -'O ' O
Ln , O
M M ' O
u -
u
'
o v a 0o°a alio 0
lOM��tN00 , O
o°oeo o tt�tt� o
Ir1-�tItflo , O
U 11 ,
P II N , O
UCOMMM ' O
N M
II '
o° o° o° o° e° o° o°
e° oe o° \ � 0 oe
O 11 0',�-� OMpn , O
r-10LAM010 , O
C) II
0, 11 N.- N O �-�0 �N , O
�- It f� ' O
O lO M �t N M ' O
M M r ' O
11 '
o° o°°\° a\°ee\ \o\°0o°
o°o°e\\°eroe
U11 1OMOO r-4 0000 , O
�'t00'OMM , O
II '
Coll)
U Il MNO•Or-r-1��N , O
' .
NMfr1NO
II r- 10 , O
M M ' O
11 '
It
o° o° o° eP o°
ONE oe o° at ee e° o°
ONIr!"f , O
0 11 NOONMM
000
11100N0•N�t ' O
11 '
tJ• 11 N N cm C) %0 � N , O
'
.- t %0 M %0 ' O
O
M N , O
1 ,
,
o\\° o° oe o° e\°
\ e\° 3R °\°
ti 11 O0,—C) Mln�t ' O
M•-'oWC) , O
CO
O� 11 UNOOO���N , O
UO�ttrl��t ' O
If ti ' O
O
#
11 •
'
0 0 0° o° o° \ \ \ x \
\ e° \ e \ o°
10fl (-N�-O�t�00Lr! , O
O•-tOt000 , O
a
O)
CO II
0, 11 001` 00000 -- ' O
'
00000"0,— ' O•
cD
.- II P , O
�- N O
41
U
L
'
,
'
'
i�.
U
a
E
rn a
# X a U
# co
v U >
J
n X C L
#
co a a
#
U
7 a 41 U) N
X c17
N
a cn > m 4�
4-'
> C U 4.1 L C fn
a co C a s a
(n N
O a D
I.L
L cc a L L 7
U U cA
O
a. 11 N 41 L C
r a C cn
IT 7 C O 7 o a
IT > t 0 41
>
cy
C > U a U a >
•- X +� U UE 7 a
C L L •� 0
h a a +' O
L > U
Q
L fD L O •� O L C W
-� " L O W
Y to U
L L O a
f
7 1-X v IQ) 4- >
U >- O c0 C W to a N
7 O >- 41
U 3 4a rn a O a
N
a 4, L N a V)• � a N L a,
L CL a L 7 a O
.N
aF C S L F+
oC a U C •-- • Q O
#
a (j) C U C U) L 1-
# f1-� a C C a L a
U •� 7 C 3 t-
# •� E C >- a
#
#
# O cD -!-c0 N cD > m =
L a c0 L7 L a L 41
0 7 0—.-.-
#
a �cnf-mom W UO
a 12L Ua- UL�
11
TABLE VII
FISCAL MODEL INPUT CATEGORIES
I I
it
NOOInco
O
InOC)
If
NP1�0%C0
II
r N M
O '
�t If
O
CA 11
P 11
r 11
i
11
11
tl
t1100"tW
O
t-00
11
It t-
O
C) C)
11
M it
O, M
t!1
ti N .
O
0011
T
O1
� 11
1
tl
11
11
11
II
r- 'o M to
C>coInlTN
ILl
N
O M
In
10 to Co
n
tiNO
11
— I,- —
N
N
N N
N 11
M
01 11
N
N
11
11
II
I 11
C�7 fl- NIn
00 O
0000
II
N M 10
O
N C O
li
r- 11
In
O
10 C '
� O
U 11
O
C
P 11
II
M
M
1
11
11
II
C) C) W -
O il- M
C 1\ O
11
M�f--
r1i 10
It
CRI
Mo�
O
01 I i
CIO
c0
1
I I
I I
# 11
# II
OOOIf11-
CD co N
N000
ti
# 11
# # P 11
co
Pt --(D
�O
# # P
# r II
M
M
# 1t
p # II
W # II
S# II
Oa00lN00
C) -t N
rel In
0- # IICT
N M
r-
'O r- N
v # 11
# a0 If
—
In e-
N # O If
1
# U II
la
01
N # 11
Q # It
m # If
# 11
W #
W# If
o 0 O P It
00r'
f+100
r
LL- # II
# 11
N -It
M
O
M
W # 11
O
d' # 1` II
Q # W It
# IT It
V) # If
# 11
: Z #
Q # II
# 11
O O O O O
O O M
C O O
N # II
O
Z it co 11
# Cr 11
(- # If
Z # 11
J # 11
J #
w#
3 #
c p #
*
L
c #
Il)
c CIO ic
C
LL
is
c Z is
(1)
L)
Q /-
i
is F#
c O is
N iL
is c.i is
c ..... #
O
J✓
1--- Ci
V) N
I— C3 W
W *
co
w
z v
cn ic
m: J
O cn a
a
O
LA- u -o
o N
c O ic
(f) (A (n N V)
N
J F--
•-• Y
c Clic
c Z #
I.- 1.- 1-H1-
(A C3 Q
V) 1-- 1-- N •r•
�I-� W
W OQ
c .-. is
Z Z Z Z Z
LL L t
H u- W p
tY Z d
c W is
K N#
<mC)pW
Q C'1 Z •-• L
(1)U) Q 4!
1- LL- (n C7 V) W
W CEJ (npW w
1- 1- H
W Q N W Z IY V) U
d t1 d
c #
p#
Q >- Y- >- >- Y•
•-•wofwWWQou<<ix
J Ce 1- J Z W (IJ
(1)
L- (n N J Q K W Q
m
Z Z Z
-----
K ;Z
►-00000
- M -z1,- -0
w zcn�.-•=0UU
K Q#
Z(3Q C7 C7C7U=0I
0 W W
Q�(n LLJ wOZQ• -•
YYY
K J#
K #
W w W W W W
p I- 1--- F-- I.- I-
x (.7 1.- w W O
w•--• N (.7 W 2 J✓ J
Q i W p OC 2 F- tL' J
Z) O U w p (> (n Q tZ' V) m
U O U
W W W
K ic
•--•< Q Q Q Q
f W W W 1- D W
O 0— Q •-• •--• 0 W W Y D
== =
K is #
K K #
K is #
W U U UUUi=n
w
Of
WLA- I--
O O
U S
W W LC (.7f = n W = W d
LL- z w 1- Q
O •-• d' O d
(.JUU
##
# * #
12
It is important to note that the figures in Tables IV and V are generated based upon assumptions
made in 1985 and do not necessarily reflect the actual revenues and costs incurred by the developer
and the City of Tustin. Additionally, the revenues generated from taxes such as retail sales are not
remitted to the City until the State Franchise Tax Board has completed their accounting process and
remits the funds to the City. This usually occurs at least two to three calendar quarters after the
funds are reported. Therefore, the numbers generated by the Fiscal Impact Model do not show the
actual revenue received by the City, but serve as a framework for determining the projects overall
fiscal balance for each review period.
With four reporting periods complete and the availability of costs and revenues in the earlier phases
of development, the actual costs and revenues could be used to reevaluate these assumptions.
Updating the assumptions would assist the City Council, staff and the developer to more accurately
anticipate and evaluate the remaining stages of the Specific Plan implementation. It is anticipated
that such an evaluation of these assumptions would be undertaken separately from the Annual
Review requirement and the results and conclusions would be transmitted to the City Council under
separate cover upon its completion in early 1991.
Staff has also projected the remaining units into later years for the term of the Development
Agreement assuming construction of all 9,000 units authorized by the Agreement. These figures
were then applied to the computerized model so that the overall project projections reflect the total
number of residential units and commercial square footage approved in the Specific Plan. Each
year anticipates a positive revenue/expenditure ratio of greater than 1.0 based on the FIR Model.
These projections allow staff to analyze the future development activities and anticipate potential
problems with conformance to the phasing schedule and fiscal model.
IV. CONFORMANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The East Tustin Development Agreement is a mechanism for implementing several portions of the
Specific Plan. The primary objectives of the Agreement are as follows:
1. To secure phased completion of the public improvements and accomplish all required
dedications/reservations of the Specific Plan;
2. To assure adequate funding and dedication/reservation for the public improvements
required by the Specific Plan;
3. To clarify the respective responsibilities of the City and the developer for
implementation of those public improvements and dedications; and
4. To provide a program for monitoring and controlling the impacts of the project on the
City's fiscal resources, so that the phased development of the property and the
completion of the project will not result in a negative fiscal impact to the City.
In addition to the fiscal and development monitoring discussed previously in this report, the annual
review must determine whether or not the developer and the City have acted in good faith
compliance with the objectives of the Agreement. Therefore, discussion in this section will focus
upon pertinent areas of the Development Agreement other than the phasing and fiscal issues
previously discussed.
13
Required public improvements, dedications and reservations are generally provided with the
approval of each individual sector subdivision map (Tracts 12345, 12763, 12780 and 13627) for
Phases I, II, III and IV respectively. Dedications and/or reservations for all of the major public
streets and arterial highways, community facilities, parks and schools have been provided by the
developer. The phasing of these improvements will be tied to the approved phasing schedule as
discussed previously.
Funding for all public improvements within the East Tustin project area are provided through
various sources. These funding sources include Assessment Districts 85-1 and 86-2, developer fees
as created by City Council Resolution No. 88-12 and other various permit and review fees collected
by the City. Resolution No. 88-12 was approved by the City Council in March of 1988 for the funding
of: 1) a fire protection facility and acquisition of new fire protection equipment; 2) a proportionate
share of the costs for the�wAdening of Irvine Boulevard; and 3) a proportionate share of the costs
of the Civic Center expansion. These fees are collected based on the size of each individual
development project and are paid by the individual developers at the time building permits are
issued.
Finally, clarification of the role of the City and developer in their respective roles in implementing
the public improvements and dedications/reservations are clearly defined in the Agreement. The
developer's responsibilities include items such as: 1) circulation improvement phasing, dedication
and reservation of the required public improvements, parks, facilities and schools; 2) providing
fiscal integrity to the Specific Plan by providing a balance mix of residential and commercial
development; 3) provision of a privately owned but publicly accessible 18 -hole golf course; 4) to
develop properties in the Hillside District (as defined in the East Tustin Specific Plan) in
conformance with the City's hillside grading standards; 5) providing funding for a fire protection
facility and equipment, the Civic Center expansion and the widening of Irvine Boulevard as
discussed above; and 6) to provide low and moderate income family housing as required by
California Government Code Section 65915.
The City has, by approval of the Development Agreement, committed to providing the following
to the developer: 1) the developer has the ability to process and obtain building permits for those
uses in conformance the Specific Plan at the land use intensities specified; 2) no additional
restrictions (other than increased fees) may be applied to the project unless specified in the
Development Agreement or modified in the State Uniform Codes (Building Codes); 3.) to
cooperate with the developer for timely progress of development in the project area; 4) approval
of the Environmental Impact Report and its identified potential adverse impacts in relation to the
land uses and development proposed in the approved Specific Plan; and 5) to cooperate in the
provision of funding such as the County's housing bond programs, and the creation of special
assessment districts (Assessment Districts 85-1 and 86-2) to provide adequate means for the
provision of all required public improvements and facilities.
While the Agreement provides a mechanism to implement change, changes can not be made to the
Agreement without the express consent and knowledge of the City and developer. Any changes to
the Specific Plan and/or the Developer Agreement require analysis under the California Environ-
mental Quality Act and other related state laws and regulations. No such changes have been made
to date.
14
V. CONCLUSION
The annual review conducted by the Community Development Department provides information
to the Tustin City Council for the purposes of determining good faith compliance of the City and
the developer under the terms of the Development Agreement for the East Tustin Specific Plan.
Each of the annual review components has been completed and analysis of the results have been
provided in this report. Each of the requirements of the developer and the City have been met and
based on the information provided in the annual review. This Development Monitoring and
Annual Review Report establishes:
1. Conformance with the requirements of the Specific Plan;
2. Conformance with the phasing schedule and Fiscal Impact Model; and
3. Conformance with the requirements of the Development Agreement.
Based upon review of the Community Development Department records as presented in this
report, the City and the Developer are in general compliance with the adopted Development
Agreement for East Tustin. In conformance with the requirements of the Agreement, the
Community Development Department staff will initiate the annual review process in November for
each year of the Agreement term. The results of this review will subsequently be presented to the
City Council for determination. of compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement.
15
APPENDIX I
************************************************************
MARKET ASSUMPTIONS
************************************************************
VALUE EXPLANATION
----------- -------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
** RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY A **
1.20 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
$500,000 SECURED VALUATION PER UNIT
4.2 POPULATION PER UNIT -
** RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY B **
3.37 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
$250,000 SECURED VALUATION PER UNIT
3.4 POPULATION PER UNIT
** RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY C **
7.23 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
$170,000 SECURED VALUATION PER UNIT
2.8 POPULATION PER UNIT
** RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY D **
11.54 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
$130,000 SECURED VALUATION PER UNIT
2.8 POPULATION PER UNIT
** RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY E **
17.31 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
$90,000 SECURED VALUATION PER UNIT
2.2 POPULATION PER UNIT
45% PCT. OF SECURED VAL FOR LAND (RES. LAND)
** NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL **
0.25 FLOOR AREA RATIO
$0 LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
$50 BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SO FT
$15 UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SO FT
$130 TAXABLE SALES PER SO FT
500 SO FT PER EMPLOYEE
** DISTRICT RETAIL **
0.25 FLOOR AREA RATIO
$0 LAND VALUE PER SITE SO FT
$50 BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SO FT
$15 UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SO FT
$150 TAXABLE SALES PER SO FT
500 SO FT PER EMPLOYEE
** REGIONAL RETAIL **
0.2296 FLOOR AREA RATIO
$0 LAND VALUE PER SITE SO FT
$50 BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SO FT
$15 UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SA FT
$200 TAXABLE SALES PER SO FT
500 SO FT PER EMPLOYEE
** FREESTANDING RETAIL **
0.25 FLOOR AREA RATIO
$0 LAND VALUE PER SITE SO FT
$40 BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SO FT
$10 UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SO FT
$100 TAXABLE SALES PER SO FT
500 SO FT PER EMPLOYEE
** OTHER RETAIL ** (auto center)
0.15 FLOOR AREA RATIO
$0 LAND VALUE PER SITE SO FT
$40 BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SO FT
$10 UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SO FT
$10,900,000 TAXABLE SALES PER AUTO DEALERSHIP
1,000 SO FT PER EMPLOYEE
16
** HOTEL **
$80 HOTEL ROOM RATE
80% HOTEL OCCUPANCY RATE
1.0 HOTEL EMPLOYEES PER ROOM
$100,000 HOTEL SECURED VALUE PER ROOM (total)
$10,500 HOTEL UNSECURED VALUE PER ROOM
7.50% PCT. OF SECURED VAL FOR LAND (HOTELS), assuming 50 % TIC ownership
50% TAXABLE SALES AS PERCENT OF ROOM RECIEPTS - HOTEL
1,000 HOTEL SQUARE FEET PER ROOM
1.00 FLOOR AREA RATIO
** GARDEN OFFICE **
0.35 FLOOR AREA RATIO
SO LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
$80 BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
$15 UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
310 SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
** MIDRISE OFFICE **
0.35 FLOOR AREA RATIO
$0 LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
$90 BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
$15 UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
310 SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
** HIGH RISE OFFICE **
0.35 FLOOR AREA RATIO
$0 LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
$100 BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
$15 UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
310 SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
** INDUSTRIAL **
0.50 FLOOR AREA RATIO
$5 LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
$40 BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
$15 UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
$14 TAXABLE SALES PER SQ FT
700 SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
** RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT **
0.40 FLOOR AREA RATIO
$5 LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
$40 BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
$15 UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
$14 TAXABLE SALES PER SQ FT
350 SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
** OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL ** (golf course land only)
0.00 FLOOR AREA RATIO
$0.34 LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
$40 BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
$15 UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
$0 TAXABLE SALES PER SQ FT
350 SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
17
**************************************************************
REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
VALUE EXPLANATION
GENERAL
40,815 TUSTIN POPULATION FOR CALCULATING MULTIPLIERS
23,755 TUSTIN EMPLOYMENT FOR CALCULATING MULTIPLIERS
LOCAL TAXES
EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FEET FOR 'MULTIPLIERS
1.00% PROPERTY TAX RATE, TOTAL
0.13% PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION, TUSTIN GENERAL FUND
0.00055 PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX RATE
0.80 CONSIDERATION RATE (for transfer tax)
0.10 TURNOVER RATES --RESIDENTIAL
0.00 --HOTEL
0.00 --OFFICE
0.00 --RETAIL
0.00 --INDUSTRIAL & other non-residential
6% TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX RATE
0.0252 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX --OFFICE PER SQ. FT.
0.0400 --RETAIL PER SQ. FT.
0.0070 --INDUSTRIAL/R & D PER SQ. FT.
0.0252 --OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL PER SQ. FT.
$2.00 --HOTEL PER ROOM
FRANCHISE FEES
2.51 GAS FRANCHISE --RETAIL PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
1.72 --OFFICE PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
2.16 --INDUSTRIAL PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
2.51 --HOTEL PER ROOM
5.16 --RESIDENTIAL PER DWELLING UNIT
--OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL PER 1,000 SQ FT
11.56 ELECTRICITY FRANCHISE --RETAIL PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
11.47 --OFFICE PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
4.23 --INDUSTRIAL PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
11.56 --HOTEL PER ROOM
4.80 --RESIDENTIAL PER DWELLING UNIT
--OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
0.42 REFUSE FRANCHISE --RESIDENTIAL PER DWELLING UNIT
0.20 --NON-RESIDENTIAL PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
2.10 CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE PER DWELLING UNIT
REVENUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES
8.64 STATE GASOLINE TAX -2107 PER CAPITA
4.52 STATE GASOLINE TAX -2106 PER CAPITA
24.68 MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEES PER CAPITA
4.28 CIGARETTE TAX PER CAPITA
1.25 P.O.S.T. REIMBURSEMENT PER CAPITA
CHARGES FOR CURRENT SERVICES
9.73 COMMUNITY SERVICES FEES PER CAPITA
0.62 PARK RENTALS PER CAPITA
OTHER REVENUES
3.87 MOTOR VEHICLE FINES --PER RESIDENT AND PER EMPLOYEE
0.62 GENERAL FINES --PER RESIDENT AND PER EMPLOYEE
1.26 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES --PER CAPITA
1.50% INTEREST FACTOR
ONE TIME FEES AND CHARGES
433 BUILDING PERMIT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT
2.50 BUILDING PERMIT FEE PER $1,000 NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING VALUATION
65% PLAN CHECK FEES AS PERCENT OF BUILDING PERMIT FEES
350 NEW CONSTRUCTION TAX PER DWELLING UNIT
100 NEW CONSTRUCTION TAX, MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, PER BEDROOM OVER ONE
100 NEW CONSTRUCTION TAX PER HOTEL ROOM
0.10 NEW CONSTRUCTION TAX PER SQUARE FOOT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
18
**************************************************************
COST ASSUMPTIONS
VALUE EXPLANATION
--------------------------------------------
POLICE DEPARTMENT
$382,374 POLICE PATROL UNIT COST
$67,405 POLICE INVESTIGATIVE UNIT COST
43.72 POLICE PATROL COSTS PER PERSON
29.30 POLICE PATROL COSTS PER 1,000 SO FT INDUSTRIAL/R & D
172.63 POLICE PATROL COSTS PER 1,000 SO FT RETAIL/OFFICE
8.26 POLICE INVEST. COSTS PER PERSON
10.34 POLICE INVEST. COSTS PER 1,000 SO FT INDUSTRIAL/R & D
33.20 POLICE INVEST. COSTS PER 1,000 SO FT RETAIL/OFFICE
28.56% POLICE DEPARTMENT OVERHEAD RATE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1,535 ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PER LANE MILE
14535 LOCAL PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PER LANE MILE
1,578 ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR TRAFFIC CONTROL PER LANE MILE
204 LOCAL TRAFFIC CONTROL PER LANE MILE
3,000 ARTERIAL LANDSCAPING PER LANE MILE (MEDIANS ONLY)
765 SLURRY SEAL PER LANE MILE - ALL STREETS
730 STREET SWEEPING PER CURB MILE - ALL STREETS
3,570 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 0 & M PER INTERSECTION
1,158 STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE PER LINEAL MILE
1,208 BRIDGE MAINTENANCE PER BRIDGE
765 TRAIL AND BIKEWAY MAINTENANCE PER MILE
7,109 PARK LANDSCAPING COSTS PER ACRE
1,559 PARK BUILDING, LIGHTING AND IRRIGATION COSTS PER ACRE
422 PARK TREE COSTS PER ACRE
730 PARKS ATHLETIC FIELDS COSTS PER ACRE
4,000 TREE MAINTENANCE COSTS PER ARTERIAL LINEAL MILE
1,715 TREE MAINTENANCE COSTS PER LOCAL LINEAL MILE
27.51% PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD
OTHER DEPARTMENTS & CITYWIDE
11.14 COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM COSTS PER CAPITA
25.86% COMMUNITY SERVICES OVERHEAD PERCENT
3.10% CITYWIDE LEGISLATIVE COSTS as percent of departmental costs
4.20% CITYWIDE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS as percent of departmental costs
3.40% CITYWIDE NON -DEPARTMENTAL COSTS as percent of departmental costs
3.70% CITYWIDE VEHICLE COSTS as percent of total departmental costs
29.87 STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION COSTS PER CAPITA
614 STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION COSTS PER MILLION A.V. BUILDINGS AND UNSECURED
19