HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 10 E. TUSTIN DEV RPT 08-7-89 .. _ ,,-~ NO. 10
DATE: AUGUST 7, 1989
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OEPARI'MENT
EAS~ TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT HONITORING AND ANNUAL REVIEW REPORT
1986-1987 ANO 1987-1988 REVIEW PERIOOS
RECOMMENOATION
Recetve and file.
BACICGROUND
The Community Development Department presented the first East Tustin Development
Monitoring and Annual Review Report to the City Council on January 16, 1989.
The report was continued due to a request of the Irvine Company to allow more
time for them to review the report. Since this time, staff has been working
closely wi th the Irvine Company to resolve any outstanding questions and
issues. Minor gramatical changes have been made to the report and a final
version has been prepared. The final version is attached to this report for
Council review.
As discussed in the originally presented staff report, the Irvine Company has
made a good faith effort to comply with the East Tustin Development Agreement.
The basis for making this determination and,,contents of the report are discussed
in the attached staff report.
CONCLUSION
· m~ i ii
Staff is confident that the final report best represents the activities and
fiscal projections for the'project. Based upon the findings in the report,
staff suggests that the Council receive the report with the concurrence that all
requirements of the Development Agreement have been met for the 1986-87 and
1987-88 reporting periods.
·
·
Senior Planner Director of Community Development
CAS:LCK:jk
Attachment: Staff Report January 16, 1989
Development Monitor Report
u~m,--: OANUARY 16, 1989
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLI/g4 A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMI4UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTHENT
EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT MONITORING AND ANNUAL REVIEW REPORT:
1986-1987 AND 1987-1988 REVIEW PERIODS
REC01~ENDATION
Recel ve and file.
BACKGROUND
The East Tustin Development Agreement between the City of Tustln and the Irvlne
Company was originally adopted on October 22, 1986 as a mechanism for
Implementing the East Tustin Specific Pl'an. The Agreement identified phased
public improvements and required dedications to be accomplished by the Specific
Plan, assured adequate fundlng 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 lmpact on the Clty.
Pursuant to Section 3.1 of ti~e 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 wi th the items of the
agreement would be demonstrated by evidence of the following'
1. Conformance with tl~e 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.
While the Irvine Company was informed in late 1987 of the City's intention to
review their performance under the Agreement, much of %he analytical information
needed for the Fiscal Impact Analysis could not be accessed until final purchase
of a license agreement for the Fiscal Impact Model was made. Installation and
training on the model was also needed. The City Council was previously
informed of the anticipated delay in the 1986/1987 Monitoring Report and of its
consolidation with the 1987/1988 report.
City Council Report
E.T. Development Monitoring
and Annual Report 1987/88
January 16, 1989
Page two
Staff have now comptled all necessary information to complete the annual revlews
for both reporting periods. All of the detailed findlngs and exhtblts are
compiled In the attached East Tustln Development Monitoring and annual revtew
Report. Staff belleves that the developer has acted In good faith In compliance
wtth the terms of the Development Agreement and no cause for further action at
thls time ts considered necessary. The remainder of thls report summarizes
staff findings. .
L
ANALYSIS
As discussed In more detail In the attached report, the annual revlew Includes
three major components. Each of these components are briefly summarized below:
1. Compliance w.i.th Deve.l. opment,lAgreem,en.t, and Speci.f~c Plan
This component involves a review of the Development Agreement and Specific
Plan. Staff have 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 mechani sm, an
administrative adjustment or variance. Both of these procedures are
considered acceptable in the Plan and by State law.
Compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement can be measured by
considering compliance with the phasing schedule and Fiscal Impact Report as
discussed below.
2. _Development Ph.a.sln~q 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 which are net revenue
generators with development of uses that create costs to the City in excess
of revenues to the City. so that an overall surplus of revenues over costs
would be achieved. With the current number of auto dealers operating and
Community Development DeparTment
City Council Report
E.T. Development, Monitoring
and Annual Report 1987/88
January 16, 1989
Page three
L
the square footage of commercial development open for business in East
Tustin, the developer was authorized at the conclusion of the last two
annual review periods to build and occupy up to 955 residential units.
Only 736 residential units were released for occupancy as of November 1,
1988, 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. This model runs on Lotus 1,2,3 software 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.
After running all of the development related figures, staff has found that
the model has provided the following cost-to-revenue ratio for the two
official monitoring periods: ,
1986/1987 1987/1988
~ 1.47
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.
One important caution should be indicated, in reviewing the fiscal model,
for it does not reflect actual costs and revenues. All costs and revenues
are only anticipated based on revenue generating examples found elsewhere
or estimated based on original Fiscal Impact Model assumptions. An example
would be the case of sales tax revenues whicll are merely projected. It can
often take 2-3 quarters before actual revenues are received from the state
on any one dealership after business is opened and then it can take a
significant length of time for business to build up to expected levels of
sales tax generation.
CONCLUSION
·
Based upon staff's 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
Cornrnuni~y Development Department
City Councll Report
E.T. Development Monitoring
and Annual Report 1987/88
January 16, 1989
Page four'
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.
Laura C. Kbhn
Seni or P1 anner
LCK :CAS:ts
Attachment' Annual Review Report
~hriStl ne A. Shl nglx~ton
Directo~ of Community Development
L
Corn rnunit¥ Developrnen; DeparTment ....
Development Monitoring
and Annual Review Repot~
East Tustin
OFFICIAL REPORTING PERIOD:
November 1986-November 1987
and
November 1987-November 1988
Prepared by the
Community Development Department
I
I
T~BLE OF CONTENTS
Sub~ect
page
I. Introduction
II. Conformance with Requirements of Specific Plan
III. Conformance with Phasing Schedule and Fiscal
Impact Model
- Phasing Schedule
- Fiscal Impact Model
IV. Conformance with the Requirements of the Development
Agreement
V. Conclusion
VI. Appendix I- Cost and Revenue Assumptions
VII. Appendix II- Additional Reports
16
18
19
26
List of Tables and Figures
Figure I- East Tustin Fiscal Area
Table I- East Tustin Phasing Schedule
Table II- Phased Unit Allowance Under Actual Development
Table III-Status of East Tustin Residential Projects
Figure II-Tustin Auto Center Map and Development Status
Table IV- Summary of Recurring Revenues and Costs
Table V- Summary of Fiscal Impacts
Table VI- Fiscal Model Input Categories
10
11
12
13
15
I. INTRODUCTION
In March of 1986, the Tustin City Council approved the East Tustin
Specific Plan for the development of the project area now known
as the Tustin Ranch. The East Tustin Development Agreement between
the City of Tustin and the Irvine Company was subsequently approved on
October 22, 1986 as a mechanism for implementing the East Tustin
Specific Plan, and for ensuring compliance with the requirements of
the Environmental Impact Report and Fiscal Impact Report for the
project. The Agreement includes the following elements:
(1) implementation of phased public improvements~ (2) requires
dedications to be accomplished by the Specific Plan~ (3) adequate
funding for certain improvements~ (3) identification of the respective
responsibilities of the City and developer~ and (4) provides 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
will 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
terms of the agreement would be demonstrated by evidence f the
following: o
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 the annual review and
monitoring of the East Tustin development as required by the
Development Agreement. Due to a number of unforeseen delays in
obtaining and training on the Fiscal Impact Model, the initial report
is provided for two reporting periods: November, 1986 - November,
1987 and November, 1987 - November, 1988. Ail figures used in the
review are based upon the actual records on file as of November 1,
1988. Utilizing computer generated estimates, staff have also
provided preliminary projections for anticipated development for the
next review period (November, 1988 - November, 1989), data was based
upon current project approvals and construction activities currently
underway or those shortly anticipated to start construction.
The remainder of this report will focus upon the individual components
of the annual review and development monitoring requirements of the
Development Agreement. These components include the three
requirements outlined in Section 3 I of the Agreement as
above. ' listed
II. CONFO~CE WITH REOUIREMENTS OF SPECIFIC PLaN
The East Tustin Specific Plan requires that projects developed in the
Tustin Ranch area be constructed in accordance with the adopted
Specific Plan. Ail projects are filed with the Department of
Community Development for review by the Design Review Committee. This
Committee is comprised of representatives from each of the following
City and County Departments:
1. Community Development~
2. Public Works~
3. Police Department~
4. Community Services~ and
5. Orange County Fire.
All projects for development within the East Tustin project area are
reviewed by the Committee for determination of conformance with the
Specific Plan. This process includes a review of how a project
conforms with the development standards of each land use category in
the Plan. Compliance with any other applicable provisions of the
Specific Plan and City Code are also reviewed. Each project is then
presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council for final
determinations on each project were required by the Development
Processing/Administration Chapter of the Specific Plan (Section 3.12).
Ail projects are also reviewed under the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The East Tustin Specific Plan was accompanied by an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) which is required by CEQA. In addition to
reviewing each of the development projects in the East Tustin project
area for conformance with the Specific Plan and Subdivision Map Act,
each project is reviewed and monitored for conformance with the EIR
and its corresponding mitigation measures. Some of the common project
considerations regarding environmental impact include conformance with
the development standards of the Specific Plan, noise testing,
monitoring and limits on construction hours, provision for pedestrian
circulation elements to encourage use of transit facilities such as
bus stops and bicycle paths, and consideration of land use limits
under the Browning Corridor. These are just a few of the many
considerations which are addressed when the Design Review Committee
reviews a development project.
These components include policies on the provision of public
facilities such as roads,, flood control devices, sewer systems, water
systems, parks, utilities, schools, and other public facilities. To
date, the developer and the City have provided many of the required
public facilities in the project area, some of which are listed
below:
lo
Construction of the E1 Modena
enhancements~
Flood Control Channel
·
·
Construction of public streets such as the completion of E1
Camino Real to Jamboree Road, portions of Myford Road,
Tustin Ranch Road, Heritage Way, Park Center Lane, and other
such circulation improvements as required in the Specific
Plan~
Reservation of land for park sites in three of the four
project Dhases~
Reservation of land for school sites in three of the four
project phases~
Installation of all required utilities in all of phase one
and portions of phase two~ and
Commencement of construction of an 18-hole golf course which
will be open to the public.
To date, staff has reviewed all required plans and supervised
construction activities for conformance with the approved plans. No
known violations of the Specific Plan, City Code, Subdivision Map Act
or CEQA have occurred. Any variations from the requirements of the
Specific Plan have been processed through one of the appropriate
mechanisms authorized by the Plan: (1) an administrative adjustment,
or (2) a variance. The developer has complied with all development
standardst policies, programs and guidelines called out in thc
~pecific Plan.
III. CONFORMANCE WITH P~SING SCHEDULE ~ FISC~ IMPACT MODET.
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 to be provided (such as auto dealers,
retail space and hotel rooms) at a rate which ensures a fiscal balance
between these 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 on
Figure I.
Each of the two components of this element of the annual review are
discussed separately below.
1. PHASING SCHEDULE= Using the information contained in the
Community Development Department records, actual development figures
can be compared with the phasing schedule contained in the Development
Agreement. Table I is the approved phasing schedule which is
contained in the East Tustin Development Agreement. Table II shows
actual development performance including the year and number of
residential units occupied, as well as the commercial square footage.
conformance with the Development Agreement. Additionally, estimates
Figure i
East Tustin Fiscal Area
.
LEGEND
~ - Auto Center
12 - Mixed Use Center
~,~.~- Phase ! Residential Area
10-11 - Phase I! Residential 'Area
7-9 - Phase III Residential Area
1-6 - Phase IV Residential Area
""'"- East Tustin Fiscal Area
Boundary
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
These figures are then compared with the phasing schedule to check for
for the November, 1988 - November, 1989 review period are provided to
ensure continued compliance with the schedule until the next annual
review is conducted in November, 1989.
Community Development Department staff conducted a review of the
Building Division files as of November 1, 1988 in order to determine
the actual number of residential units occupied and the date of their
release for occupancy. Additionally, the actual square footage of
commercial floor area released for occupation (STOR and Home Express)
and the total number of auto dealerships operating were determined.
These figures (as shown in Tables I and II) were then compared with
the phasing schedule and fed into the computerized fiscal impact model
based upon what review period they were completed in.
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. 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.
As evidenced by the information provided by this review, the developer
has the authorization to occupy up to a maximum of 1,695 residential
units in the November, 1986 - November, 1987 and November, 1987 -
November, 1988 review periods (no additional dealer credits are
warranted, based upon the criteria discussed above). Anticipated
1988-1989 construction activities show that additional commercial
square footage and auto dealers are scheduled to open in the near
future. With the addition of this anticipated square footage, an
additional 3,138 residential units may be built or a total residential
development authorization of 4,093 units. This would include all of
the proposed units in Phase I, the maximum units proposed in Phase
II, and up to 1,958 additional units which would be proposed in Phase
III.
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 formula: 1,000 square feet of
retail = .976 hotel rooms or .0135 auto dealers or 1,034 stare feet of
retail~ one auto dealer = 71.81 hotel rooms or 74,251 square feet of
retail. However, any one specific revenue generating category (hotel,
retail or auto dealer) cannot be completely eliminated through the
application of this formula without an amendment of the Specific
Plan. Additionally, if such an interchange was to be made, the
transfer of one revenue generating use to another would reduce the
number of units allowed in the original category, i.e. if retail
6
..T2tBLE 'r
EAST TUST'rN DEVELOPMENT AGREMENT
APPROVED PHASING SCHEDULE
DWELLING
UNITS
CUM. CUM. AUTO
DWELLING SQ. FT. RETAIL CENTER
UNITS RETAIL SQ. FT. DEAT,~.RS
HOTEL
ROON._"
955
740
1,095
1,303
1,273
1,192
1,212
339
336
187
188
180
955
1,695
2,790
4,093
5,366
6,558
7,770
8,109
8,445
8,632
8,820
9.000
0 0
0 0
0 0
400,000 400,000
400,000 800,000
0 800,000
0 800,000
80,000 880,000
0 880.000
220,000 1,100,000
0 1,100,000
0 1,100,000
3
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.000
1,100,000
ltl00t000
10
250
YEAR
BUILT*
TABLE II
ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN EAST TUSTIN
CUM. CUM.
DWELLING DWELLING SQ. FT. RETAIL
UNITS UNITS RETAIL SQ. FT.
AUTO
CENTER
1985-1986 0 0 0 0
1986-1987 373 373 0 0
1987-1988 363
736 194,111 194,111
1988--1989'* 1,908
2,644 200,000 394,111
YEAR*
COMPARISON WITH ADOPTED
PHASING SCHEDULE
TYPE OF WORK
COMPLETED
TOTAL TOTAL
UNITS UNITS REMAINING
ALLOWED BUILT UNITS
1985-1986
3 AUTO DEALERS
1,695 0 1,695
1986-1987
373 UNITS
I AUTO DEALER
1,695 373 1,322
1987-1988
363 UNITS
2 AUTO DEALERS
194,111 SQ.FT.RETAIL
1,695 736 959
1988-1989-*
1,908 UNITS
4 AUTO DEALERS
200,000 SQ.FT.RETAIL
4,093 2,644 1,449
* Review periods run from November I to November 1.
** All figures for 1989 are estimates based upon project approvals and
current construction activities.
square footage is interchanged to credit for additional auto dealer,
the square footage applied to the dealer credit is deleted from the
original retail category.
The phasing schedule and determination of the status of the Phasing
Schedule does not include any interchange of uses unless requested by
the Developer. To date, no such request has been made to the City of
Tustin.
Supplemental information has been provided in Table III which shows
the more specific status of residential projects in the first three
phases of the East Tustin project as of November 1, 1988. The Table
identifies the number of units which have been approved, under
construction, completed or currently in the Design Review process. A
Sector level Subdivision Map for Phase IV (the remaining land area in
the East Tustin project) is currently in Design Review. Figure II
also indicates the location and development status of each of the auto
dealerships in the Tustin Auto Center as of November 1, 1988.
Based on staff review of the assumptions in the Fiscal Impact Report,
the actual number of residential units completed and commercial square
footage occupied was less than what was originally anticipated.
The major difference was noted in the increase of auto dealers
occupied in the early years of the Development Agreement term.
Additionally, there were no residential units constructed in 1986,
which was less than anticipated in the Fiscal Impact Report. Overall,
the commercial development factor has provided for 1,695 residential
units to be built, as of November 1, 1988, there were only ?36
completed residential units. Although the actual development has
occurred in a slightly different pattern than' originally anticipated
as discussed above, it is evident that the development is fiscally
balanced as shown in the figures generated by the fiscal model in
Tables IV and V. Therefore, the actual development in East Tustin to
date, has met the minimum requirements of the phasing schedule.
FIBCAL IMPACT MODEL (FIR)= The FIR was based upon a computerized
program which was part of the original consultant contract with
Stanley Hoffman and Associates. A copy of the model was recently made
available to the Community Development Department staff for use when
conducting the annual review. The model operates on the Community
Development Department,s Hewlett Packard Vectra personal computer
aided with the use of Lotus 123 software. Staff uses the model in
order to determine whether there is a fiscal balance between the cost
and revenue generating factors associated with the development in the
East Tustin Fiscal Area (see Figure I).
The model uses the actual number of residential dwelling units and
commercial square footages which are occupied in 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 assumptions required to
be used in the annual review are the original assumptions stated in
9
T~BLE III
STATUS OF E/~ST TUSTIN RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
NOVEMBER 1988
~tEA/ TRACT
PROJECT DEVELOPER ~
# OF UNIT # UNITS
UNITS TYPE COMPLETE
PROJECT STATUS
COMMENTS
PIL~SE I
Bren Company
(Shadowbrook)
Bren Company
(Sycamore Glen)
Irvine Pacific
(Rancho Alisa1)
13044
12732
218
Single
Family
232 Condo
12759 344 Apts
99
119
344
Remainder of
units under
construction.
Remainder of
units under
construction.
Completed.
PHASE I TOTALS:
794
562
PHASE II
Irvine Pacific 13030
(Rancho Maderas)
Irvine Pacific 13038
(Rancho Robles)
Bramalea 13094
(Monterey)
J. M. Peters 13053
(~lmeria)
Bren-Osgood 13080
(Maricopa)
Fieldstone 13106
(Sevilla)
LDM Company 13161
(Estancia)
Bren Company 13096
(~rcada)
266 Condo/
Apts
252 Condo/
Apts
103 Single
Family
118 Single
Family
100 Single
Family
110 Single
Family
145 Condo
237 Condo
0
0
32
39
32
0
0
0
Under
construction.
Under
construction.
Remainder of
units under
construction.
Remainder of
units under
construction.
Remainder of
units under
construction.
Under
construction.
Under
construction.
Under
construction.
PHASE II TOTALS:
lv331
103
PHASE III
Akins Development 13701
Akins Development 13702
Akins Development 13746
Regis Contractors 13824
Bren Company 13796
91 Single
Family
70 Single
Family
320 Apts.
324 Condo
108 Condo
Design Review.
Design Review.
Design Review.
Design Review.
Design Review.
PHASE III TOTALS=
913
10
FIGURE !1
TUSTIN ,'O CENTER AND STATUS (.. DEVELOPMENT
M(:LEAN CADILLAC/DLAHATSU
(1986)
EL CAMIN~ REAL
! A, Ct. FiA
! (1986)
~ PHERSON
MACPHER$ON ~ INFINITY
FORD ~_ D.R.
U. C.
L~NCOLN
HYUNDAI
EXECUTIVE
PONTIAC
· (1987)
MERCURY ./ U.b. WORTHINGTON I PROPOSED
.~. c. .~. ~, .. ~s~ I ~_x~^~,o~
..~ ' '~ ~ ~ (1988)
~ ~ MAC PHERSON ~% (1986) ~
/ J~ DEALER/STORAGE '~ ' ~ I
- ] ~ SITE --*~ t ~CPHERSON TOYOTA I LEXXUR
- SA~A ANA FR~VAY
TUSTIN AUTO CENTER
(~"~) - DATE OPENED/OCCUPIED U. C.- UNDER CONSTRUCTION
D, R,- IN DESIGN REVIEW
North
Not to scale
11
:
IIIIIIIIIIIIIillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll~iillllllllllll:
12
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
ii
·
IIIlllllllllllllllllillll
·
13
the FIR.
report.
These assumptions are provided in Appendix I of this
The model uses a land use and development year matrix whereby units
are noted in the year developed and according to the development type.
For the purposes of the annual review, Table VI has been provided to
show where the units have been noted in the model by year and land use
type.
The Development Agreement (Section 1.9) 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
IV). A value 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 IV
indicates that a minimum of 1.0 cost to revenue ratio has been
attained. For the two reporting years covered by the annual review,
the ratios are 2.02 for the November, 1986 - November, 1987 year and
1.47 for the November, 1987 - November, 1988 year. Since both figures
for the required reporting years are above 1.0, substantial
conformance with the fiscal impact component of the Annual Review can
be determined. Table V includes a summary of the fiscal impacts for
each reporting year. These impacts are provided in percentages of
each major cost and reVenue source.
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.
Staff have also projected the remaining units into later years for the
term of the Development 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 footages
approved in the Specific Plan. These projections allow staff to
analyze the future development activities and determine potential
problems with conformance with the phasing schedule and fiscal model.
Additional reports are generated by the model which estimate= (1) the
City's one-time costs and related fees, and (2) estimated staffing
14
emmmm
m
m
·
·
mm
· -~ ·
m
mm
m
15
projections. These additional reports are contained in Appendix II of
this report.
CONFORM]tNCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEVELOPNENT AGRE_RH~.NT
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:
·
·
·
·
To secure phased completion of the public improvements and
accomplish all required dedications/reservations of the
Specific Plan;
To assure adequate funding and dedication/reservation for
the public improvements required by the Specific Plan;
To clarify the respective responsibilities of the City and
the developer for implementation of those public
improvements and dedications which clarification is needed
to provide a basis for the City,s fiscal planning.
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. Since the review of the
p. hasing and fiscal issues have been discussed in preceding sections
of this report, the remainder of this discussion will focus upon the
analysis of the Development Agreement.
Required public improvements, dedications and ~ reservations are
generally provided with the approval of each individual sector
subdivision map (Tracts 12345, 12763 and 12780) for Phases I, II, and
III, 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 developer is currently in
the Design Review process for the fourth and final sector map which
will provide the remainder of the required public street, facility,
school reservations and park dedications as mandated in the Specific
Plan and Development Agreement. 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 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 following purposes: (1) funding and
construction of a fire protection facility and acquisition of a new
16
engine pumper for the facility, and (2) a proportionate share of the
costs for the widening of Irvine Blvd. and expansion of the Civic
Center. Ail 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
developers responsibilities include items such as= (1) circulation
improvement phasing dedications and reservations 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 (to be adopted)~ (5) providing funding for a fire protection
facility and engine pumper~ (6) proportional funding for the Civic
Center expansion and the widening of Irvine Blvd. as discussed above;
and (?) 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 Development Agreement require analysis under the California
State Environmental Quality Act and other related state laws and
regulations. No such changes have been made to date. Thereforet the
City and developer have acted in good faith compliance with the te~,s
of the Development Agreement.
17
CONCLUSION
The annual review conducted by the Community Development Department
will provide 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. 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:
Conformance with the requirements of the Specific Plan;
Conformance with the phasing schedule and Fiscal Impact
Model; and
Conformance with the requirements of the Development
Agreement.
Considering the requirements of the Development Agreement as discussed
above, and the progress that the City and developer have made to
implement the project, all of the dedication, reservation and funding
requirements have been met for the approved phases of development. At
the time the final phase of development is approved, the developer
will provide all of the remaining public street, facility, and park
dedications and school site reservations. All funding is provided
through property tax assessments payable by the home owner's and also
through developer fees paid at the time building permits are issued.
The annual review process establishes that the City and Developer have
acted in good faith with the original intent of the project and
compliance with the Development Agreement can be assured. 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.
18
Appendix I
COST AND REVENUE
ASSUMPTIONS
19
CITY OF TUSTIN FISCAL ANALYSIS MODEL
MARKET AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
FACTOR VALUE EXPLANATION
ED
EV
EP
** RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY A **
1.20 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
$500,000 SECURED VALUATION PER UNIT
4.2 POPULATION PER UNIT
LD
LV
LP
** RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY B **
3.37 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
$250,000 SECURED VALUATION PER UNIT
3.4 POPULATION PER UNIT
MD
MV
MP
** RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY C **
?.23 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
$170,000 SECURED VALUATION PER UNIT
2.8 POPULATION PER UNIT
MHD
MHV
MHP
** RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY D **
11.54 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
$130,000 SECURED VALUATION PER UNIT
2.8 POPULATION PER UNIT
HD
HV
HP
** RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY E **
17.31 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
$90,000 SECURED VALUATION PER UNIT
2.2 POPULATION PER UNIT
RLF
45% PCT. OF SECURED VAL FOR LAND (RES. LAND)
NRF
NRL
NRB
NRU
NRS
NRE
** NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL **
0.25
$0
$50
$15
$130
500
FLOOR AREA RATIO
LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
TAXABLE SALES PER SQ FT
SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
20
MARKET AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
(Continued)
** DISTRICT RETAIL **
DRF 0.25
DRL $O-
DRB $5O
DRU $15
DRS $150
DRE 500
FLOOR AREA RATIO
LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
TAXABLE SALES PER SQ FT
SQ ~FT PER EMPLOYEE
** REGIONAL RETAIL **
RRF 0.2296
RRL $0
RRB $5O
RRU $15
RRS $2OO
RRE 500
FLOOR AREA RATIO.
LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
TAXABLE SALES PER SQ FT
SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
** FREESTANDING RETAIL **
ACF 0.25
ACL $0
ACB $4O
ACU $10
ACS $100
ACE- 500
FLOOR AREA RATIO
LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
TAXABLE SALES PER SQ FT
SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
** OTHER RETAIL ** (auto center)
ORF 0.15
ORL $0
ORB $4O
ORU $10
ORS $10,900,000
ORE 1,000
FLOOR AREA RATIO
LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
TAXABLE SALES PER AUTO DEALERSHIP
SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
** HOTEL **
HRR $8O
HOCC 8O%
HEMP 1.0
HSV $100,OO0
HUV $10,500
HLF 7~50%
HS 50%
HRF 1,000
HF 1.00
HOTEL ROOM RATE
HOTEL OCCUPANCY RATE
HOTEL EMPLOYEES PER ROOM
HOTEL SECURED VALUE PER ROOM (total)
HOTEL UNSECURED VALUE PER ROOM
PCT. OF SECURED VAL FOR LAND (HOTELS), assuming
TAXABLE SALES AS PERCENT OF ROOM RECIEPTS - HOT
HOTEL SQUARE FEET PER ROOM
FLOOR AREA RATIO
21
MARKET AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
{Continued}
GOF
GOL
GOB
.GOU
.GOE
MOF
MOL
MOB
MOU
MOE
HROF
HROL
HROB
HROU
HROE
** GARDEN OFFICI~ **
0.35
$o
$8O
$15
310
FLOOR AREA RATIO
LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
** MIDRISE OFFICE **
0.35
$o
$9O
$15
310
FLOOR AREA RATIO
LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
** HIGH RISE OFFICE **
0.35
$o
$100
$15
310
FLOOR AREA RATIO
LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
BUILDING VALUATION PER. BLDG SQ FT
UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
IF
IL
IB
IU
IS
IE
** INDUSTRIAL **
0.50
$5
$4O
$15
$14
7OO
FLOOR AREA RATIO
LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
TAXABLE SALES PER SQ FT
SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
RDF
RDL
RDB
RDU
RDS
RDE
ONRF
ONRL
ONRB
ONRU
ONRS
'ONRE
** RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT **
0.40
$5
$40
$15
$14
350
FLOOR AREA RATIO
LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ FT
BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
TAXABLE SALES PER SQ FT
SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
** OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL ** {golf course land. only)
0.00
$0.34
$4O
$15
$0
35O
FLOOR AREA RATIO
LAND VALUE PER SITE SQ .FT
BUILDING VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
UNSECURED VALUATION PER BLDG SQ FT
TAXABLE SALES PER SQ FT
SQ FT PER EMPLOYEE
22°
I:Ill~ OF TUSTIN FISCAL ANALYSIS MODEL.
CITY OF TUSTIN REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
VALUE EXPLANATION
GENERAL
40,815
23,755
LOCAL TAXES
1.00%
0.13%
0.00055
0.80
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6%
0.0252
0.0400
0.0070
0.0252
$2.00
FRANCHISE FEES
2.5I'
1.72
2.16
2.51
5.16
11.56
11.47
4.23
11.56
4.80
0.42
0.20
2.10
TUSTIN POPULATION FOR CALCULATING MULTIPLIERS
TUSTIN EMPLOYMENT FOR CALCULATING MULTIPLIERS
EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FEET FOR MULTIPLIERS
PROPERTY TAX RATE, TOTAL
PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION, TUSTIN GENERAL FUND
PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX RATE
CONSIDERATION RATE (for transfer tax)
TURNOVER RATES--RESIDENTIAL
--HOTEL
--OFFICE
--RETAIL
--INDUSTRIAL & other'non-residential
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX RATE
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX--OFFICE PER SQ. FT.
--RETAIL PER SQ. FT.
--INDUSTRIAL/R & D PER SQ. FT.
--OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL PER SQ. FT.
--HOTEL PER ROOM
GAS FRANCHISE--RETAIL PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
--OFFICE PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
--INDUSTRIAL PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
--HOTEL PER ROOM
--RESIDENTIAL PER DWELLING UNIT
--OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL PER 1,000 SQ FT
ELECTRICITY FRANCHISE--RETAIL PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
--OFFICE PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
--INDUSTRIAL PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
--HOTEL PER ROOM
--RESIDENTIAL PER DWELLING UNIT
--OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
REFUSE FRANCHISE--RESIDENTIAL PER DWELLING UNIT
--NON-RESIDENTIAL PER 1,000 SQ. FT.
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE PER DWELLING UNIT
'CITY OF TUSTIN REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
(Continued)
VALUE EXPLANATION '
Immmmml~ml~ I~l~m~m~l~mmmm~m~mmmmmm~m~m~l~mm~m~
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-RES. BUILDING VAI.UATION
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 BDRM OVER ONE
100 NEW CONSTRUCTION TAX PER HOTEL ROOM
0.10 NEW CONSTRUCTION TAX PER SQUARE FOOT OF NON-RES. DEVELOPMENT
2q
CITY OF TUSTIN FISCAL AJIALYSIS MODEL
CITY OF TUSTIN COST ASSUMPTIONS
VALUE EXPLANATION
POLICE DEPARTMENT
$382,374 POLICE PATROL UNIT COST
$67,405 ~OLICE INVESTIGATIVE UNIT COST
43.72 POLICE PATROL COSTS PER PERSON
29.30 POLICE PATROL COSTS PER 1,000 SQ FT INDUSTRIAL/R & D
172.63 POLICE PATROL COSTS PER 1,0'00 SQ FT RETAIL/OFFICE
8.26 POLICE INVEST. COSTS PER PERSON
10.34 POLICE INVEST. COSTS PER 1,000 SQ FT INDUSTRIAL/R & D
33.20 POLICE INVEST. COSTS PER 1,000 SQ FT RETAIL/OFFICE
28.56% POLICE DEPARTMENT OVERHEAD RATE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1,535 ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PER LANE MILE
1,535 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 M.ILE - 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
25.86%
3.10%
4.20%
3.40%
3.70%
29.87
614
COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAM COSTS PER CAPITA
COMMUNITY SERVICES OVERHEAD PERCENT
CITYWIDE LEGISLATIVE COSTS as percent of dptmntl costs
CITYWIDE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS as percent of dptmntl costs
CITYWIDE NON-DEPARTMENTAL COSTS as percent of dptmntl costs
CITYWIDE VEHICLE COSTS as percent of total dptmntl costs
STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION COSTS PER CAPITA
STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION COSTS PER MIL. A.V. BLDGS & UNSEC
Appendix
ADDITIONAL REPOR TS
26
~U
q,,.I !
ii
ii
ii
!
0
il
mm
(~ II
m m
q,.,I i
..
~ m
mm
;
i
~.
~Om
~m
~m
~OOm
~O~m
0 m
leeee ·
27
oo o
O0 0
ooo
ooo o
ooo o
OOOLO
I
I
I
0oo o
ooo o
ooo o
ooo o
ooo o
ooo o
ooo o
· · · ·
C
0
~ 0
c ~
(lO mm
(l) ii
~ m
28
I~ m ~l~)U~ I ~
(l) m I~ ~-i,w I 0
(h I ~-~ ~'l ~/~ I 0
m I~ I~ qm I ~1
I
I
I