Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA SO CENTRAL RDA 07-15-85AGENDA DATE: JULY 1, 1985 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NO. 4 7-1-85 Inter- Corn TO: FROM: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CHAIRI~AN AND HEMBERS OF REDEVELOPNENT R. KENNETH FLEAGLE, CONSULTANT SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPHENT PROJECT PLAN ANENDMENT AND REPORT BACKGROUND: Sections 33351 and 33352 of the Health and Safety Code require the Redevelopment Agency to approve a redevelopment plan and to submit it to the City Council accompanied by a report. ' The content of the report is specifically delineated to provide information for the City Council to make a determination on the feasibility of the Redevelopment Plan. The plan amendment and report have been prepared in compliance with the law. Upon receipt of the plan and report, the City Council schedules a joint public hearing before the council and Redevelopment Agency. A public hearing must be advertised for four successive weeks prior to the hearing date. The hearing date for the Enviornmental Impact Report and South/Central Redevelopment Project Amendment has been advertised for July 15, 1985. RECOI~ENDED ACTION: Approve the South/Central Redevelopment Project Plan Amendment and Report and transmit it to the City Council by adoption of RDA Resolution No. 85-8. R. KENNETH FLEAGLE~/ Community Development Consultant RKF:ts 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 15 17 18 20 ~.1 27 RDA RESOLUTION NO. 85-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADOPTING A REPORT AND TRANSMITTING REPORT, PROPOSED AMENDMENT, AND EIR 85-1 FOR THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NqENDMENT. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin hereby resolves as follows: I. The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds and determines the following: A. Pursuant to Section 33352 of the Health, and Safety Code, a report has been prepared for evaluation of the proposed South~Central Redevelopment .Project Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Draft EIR 85-1 for the proposed amendment and by Resolution No. 2241, recommends certification of the EIR and approval of the proposed South/Central Redevelopment Project Plan Amendment. Ce A public hearing on Draft EIR 85-1 and the proposed plan amendment for the South/Central Redevelopment Project has been duly advertised in the Tustin News and by certified mail to all property owners within the amended area boundaries, for said hearing to be conducted on July 15, 1985. II. The Redevelopment Agency hereby: A. Adopts and transmits its Report and Environmental Impact Report 85-i to the City Council. B. Approves the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment and submits it to the City Council for hearing and adoption. C. Requests a joint public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan Amendment and EIR to be scheduled for July 15, 19i)5 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Redevelopment Agency held on the day of , 1985. FRANK H. GREINKE Chairman MARY WYNN Secretary REPORT SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AMENDMENT CITY OF TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY I JULY 1985 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Amendment No. 1 To The South/Central Redevelopment Project Area July 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT AREA III. PROPOSED PROJECTS AND BENEFITS. A. Transportation Improvements B. Storm Drain Improvements C. Resulting Benefits IV. DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS A. Existing Physical Conditions B. Existing Social Conditions C. Existing Economic Conditions V. PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT AREA A. General Financing Methods Available to the Agency B. Estimated Project Costs C. Proposed Financing Methods D. Tax Increment Limitations and Requirements VI. PLAN AND METHOD OF RELOCATION VII. ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY PLAN VIII. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IX. PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE RECORD X. PROJECT AREA ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT XI. REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER XII. ANALYSIS OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER'S REPORT XIII. CONSULTATIONS WITH COUNTY AND AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES APPENDIXES A. FINANCIAL REPORT, STANLEY HOFFMAN ASSOCIATES B. DRAFT EIR 85-i AND RESPONSES C. SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDMENT NO. i EXHIBITS A. MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION B. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT AREA C. TRAFFIC VOLUMES D. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT E. ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT AND MINUTES F. REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER G. NOTICE AND INVITATION FOR CONSULTATION REPORT SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AMENDMENT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA JULY 1, 1985 I. INTRODUCTION Section 33352 of the Health and Safety Code (Community Redevlopment Law) requires the Redevelopment Agency to submit a report, to accompany the proposed redevelopment plan, to the City Council prior to the joint hearing for adoption of the plan. This report satisfies the requirement of law and is in justification of the proposed project amendment. II. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT AREA The area proposed for the South/Central Project area amendment is contiguous to the existing South/Central project area. Proposed public improvements for the South/Central area {Newport overpass) extend into the amendment area. Land and improvements must be acquired within the amendment area to implement public improvements related to the South/Central project. Blight exists within the amendment area caused by mixed land uses, lack of adequate development standards, inadequacy of public improvements, deficient circulation system, transition of the character of land uses, and irregular shaped lots. Public improvements required to enable the area to develop or redevelop are so extensive and costly that it is not reasonably expected that the disuse and abandonment of sites could be reversed or alleviated nor could new development take place by private enterprise acting alone. The project area was thus selected for the purpose of eliminating and preventing blight, the extension of public improvements, and the logical extension of the South/Central project area to contiguous properties. III. PROPOSED PROJECTS AND BENEFITS A. Transportation Improvements The arterial highway system serving the South/Central Rdevelopment Project area is inadequate to serve existing local and regional traffic demands. Projections to the year 2,000 show that the average daily traffic volumes within the area will increase by 564 percent. Even with improvements to Red Hill and Edinger to six travel lanes, the projected traffic demands will exceed their capacity. In the interest of finding a feasible solution to the existing and projected traffic problems, Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. were commissioned to design feasible strategies to accomodate the demands. The proposed circulation plan is shown by Fig. 1. Del Amo ConneCtion a)~ I off-ramp Figure -1 PROPCSED CIRCULATION PLAN Report Page Two The transportation improvements included in this section of the preliminary report are feasible alternatives extracted from the draft report of Austin-Foust Associates, and will be further refined upon adoption of the Project Amendment and the submission of plans and specifications for approval of the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, and responsible transportation agencies. 1. Newport Avenue Southerly Extension Newport Avenue is proposed for southerly extension by grade separation over the Santa Aha (F-lO) Flood Control Channel, ATSF Railroad mainline, and Edinger Street to interconnect with Valencia. 2. Relocation of Costa Mesa Freeway {SR-55) Ramps The Northbound off-ramp to £dinger Avenue would be deleted and replaced by a northbound on and off ramp at Valencia. 3. Internal Circulation Improvements Circulation improvements southerly of Edinger will vary depending upon the alternative design that is selected. All alternatives will require a connection to the Valencia freeway ramp. Amoung the alternatives are a new roadway parallel to Del Amo and the realignment of a section of Edinger Street. 4. Edin~er Street Improvement Edinger will be widened to full six-lane arterial from Red Hill to SR-55 with public improvements consisting of street lights, fire hydrants, sidewalks, median and parkway landscaping. 5. Red Hill Avenue Improvement Red Hill Avenue will be widened to full six-lane arterial within the project limits. 6. Traffic Sign.al.~ Traffic signals will be replaced at Red Hill intersection with Edinger and Valencia and a new signal will be required at Red Hill and Industrial Drive. B. Storm Drain Improvements Storm drains will be constructed to carry flood waters from the interior of the project area to the Redhill storm drain {FO 9 P15) to the Barranca Channel (F 09). Report page three C. Resulting Benefits The following benefits will accrue to the city of Tustin, its residents, and the region as a result of the proposed amendment to the South/Central Redevelopment Project: Abandoned industrial sites will be redeveloped and placed back into productive use, thereby creating employment opportunities and increased values. Land areas that cannot be developed due to the inadequacy of public improvements related to traffic circulation and storm drainage can be developed as a result of governmental assistance by the redevelopment agency. 3. Funds can be acquired for housing assistance to low income families. Regional benefits will accrue by providing increased traffic capacity for Redhill Avenue and Edinger Street and by providing an alternative north/south arterial. 5. The extension of Newport Avenue will relieve congestion at freeway interchanges and reduce the traffic demand on Redhill Avenue. Emergency services can be more readily provided to the project area by the construction of a grade separation for Newport Avenue and the ATSF Railroad. The elimination of blight, due to the disuse of the land within the project amendment area caused by inadequate public improvements, and the construction of major traffic circulation improvements that could not be reasonably expected to be made by private enterprise acting alone. IV. DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS A. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Project Location. The area under consideration is depicted by the map shown as Exhibit A. It is bounded on three sides by major traffic arterials - Redhill Avenue, Edinger Street and the Costa Mesa {Route 55) freeway, as further defined by the attached legal description. Land Uses and Acreage. The total acreage of the area is + 137.746 acres of which + 110 acres are in private ownership with the ~emaining acreage in publ-(c right-of-way. The area is urbanized with 63 acres developed or previously occupied for urban uses in accordance with the zoning ordinance. LZ? 8.~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ~ME~,~MENT TO THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPY~ENT PROJECT A~A iN THE CITY OF TUSTIN That portion of Lots 65, 66, 67, 78, 79, 80, 8], 82 and 83 ~n Block 10 of the Irvine Subdivision, as shown on a map recorded in Book 1, Page 88, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, and that portion of Section 16, Township 5 South, Range 9 West, San Bernardino Meridian, all being in the City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: BEGINNING at the Southerly corner of the existing boundary of the South-Central Redevelopment Project Area adopted by the City of Tustin per Resolution No. 81-13 on December 7, 1981, said Southerly corner being the intersection of the Southwesterly prolongation of the Southeasterly line of.Red Hill Avenue (60 foot half-street) and the Southeasterly prolongation of the Southwesterly line of Edinger Avenue (formerly Moulton Parkway, &O foot half-street); Thence leaving said existing South-Central Redevelopment rro~ect Area boundary along said Southeasterly line of Red Hill Avenue e~d its Southwesterly prolongation, South 39053' 23" West 890.57 feet to an angle point in said Southeasterly line; Thence continuin8 along said Southeasterly line of Red Hill Avenue North 50 06 07 West to an angle point on said South- easterly line of ~,ed Hill Avenue, (50 foot half-street); Thence conti~,uing along said Southeasterly li~'~e of Red Hill A'~,~nue an'd its Southwesterly prolongation South 39053'23" %'est 1360v_95 feet to a point on the Southeasterly prolongation of the Southwesterly line of Valencia 'Avenue (40 foot half-street); _ T~e~c e along said Southwesterly line and said Southeasterly prolongation of Valencffa Avenue ,~'orth 50005' 12" West 2660,97 feet to a point on the existing City of Tustin '~oundary created by the Warner-Sycamore Annexation adopted aS Ordinance No. 245, dated December 2, I963 and the Irvine-Myford Annexation .~'o. 81 adopted as Ordin'~nce .Yo~ 716, dated April 4, 1977, said City of Tustin Boundary also being the "Southeasterly line of Old 5'ewport Avenue (30 foot half-street); .,' Thence along said existing City o{ T~Bstin .~ounfory through the following courses and d~stanc~s: .Yorth 39°53'38'' East 2230.81 feet, more or l~ss, North 50006'22" ~,,'est 60.00 feet, .~'o~th 2~9°53'38'' East 20.00 feet to a point on said existing boundary of.. the South-Central Redevelopment Project Area, also being on the No;thwesterly prolongation of the previously said Southwesterly line of Edinger Street (40 foot half-street); Thence along said existing boundary of the South-Central Redevelopment Project Area South 50006'07" East 2730.77 feet to BEGI~N NG. the POINT OF .... I The above described land contains 137.746 acres, more or ]ess. Report page four Structures and Conditions. The subject parcels were previously reserved for rail uses by the Santa Fe Railroad and were developed by industries requiring large amounts of outside storage area and small capital investments in improvements. Typical of the users which have abandoned the sites are Boise-Cascade prefabrication facilities and other lumber and building products industries. Upon expiration of leases, a demand no longer existed for the typical uses within the area. Neither does a market demand exist for the vacant parcels reserved for rail users. As a consequence, former building sites are abandoned and serve as trash deposits. Existing development consists of a variety of industrial type users, with some limited commercial orientation, outdoor storage areas, and vacant land. The predominant commercial activities are a building products store and a retail landscape nursery. A beer distributor is the primary warehouse facility. Primary industrial tenants are manufacturers of plastic products and a small chemical distribution facility. The inclusionary character of the industrial zone has authorized a mixture of commercial and industrial land uses characterized by minimum site improvements. There is no continuity nor theme within the area and a blighting condition results from the abandonment of outdoor storage sites. The character of the area is depicted by Exhibit B. The vacant parcels that have not been previously developed are leased for truck farming, which mitigates against the appearance of blight for undeveloped areas. Properties (A) Inadequacies of Public Improvements and Facilities (1) Traffic Circulation Deficiencies Edinger Street is the major east-west arterial extending through the northern part of the site and connecting with the Costa Mesa {Route 55) freeway on the west and extending to Moulton Parkway in an easterly direction to the city of Irvine. Redhill Avenue provides access along the easterly project boundary. This is a major arterial highway with the limited capacity of a four-lane arterial. Valencia Avenue forms the southerly boundary of the site. Del Amo bisects the site between Valencia and Edinger. Existing average daily traffic volumes for the area are shown by Exhibit C. The transportation system comprises a major constraint upon the development of the property. Report page five North-south traffic congestion is the prime factor of concern for city residents. Related to the project area are the improvement of Redhill Avenue and the extension of Newport Avenue southerly to interconnect with the Costa Mesa Freeway southerly of Edinger Street. Preliminary findings indicate that the extension of Newport Avenue from its southerly terminus will require a grade separation and elevated roadway crossing the ATSF RR mainline and the F-lO Flood Control Channel and extending into the amended project area. At the present, Newport Avenue terminates at the F-lO channel. The inadequacy of the circulation system to accommodate existing traffic demands and the inordinate expense to accommodate existing and future demands resulting from new developments is a major justification for inclusion of the area in a redevelopment project. (2) Drainage Deficiencies The terrain is level with no major grading required for development. With truck farming and cultivation of large areas of vacant land, sheet flood occurs without damage to existing structures within the area. Drainage flows in a southerly direction to the F 09 (Barranca) channel. The F 09 P 15 storm drain extends to the F 09 channel along Redhill Avenue from a point 350 feet southerly of Edtnger. With the exception of 600 feet of storm drain on the easterly terminus of Valencia Avenue, there are no storm drain facilities serving the interior 100 acres. To enable development and redevelopment of the vacant land areas, a storm drain system will be required to transmit storm waters to the F 09 channel. (B) Configuration of Lots Lots and parcels within the subject area were designed to accommodate rail spurs. The development of the area by non rail users will eliminate the necessity for irregular shaped lots and will permit the realignment of lot lines. Existing Social Conditions There are no residential properties within the area proposed for amendment to the South/Central Project Area. Report page six Development and redevelopment of the amended area will create employment opportunities and demand for housing accommodations. The adjoining South project area contains 2,279 dwelling units in 557 structures. There are 116 condominium units, 88 mobile homes, 1956 apartment units, and 118 single family residences. The Regional Housing Authority Model prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments shows a current need of 2,456 low and very low income households in need of housing assistance. The South/Central Project represents the highest density, lowest income, and greatest need within the city's jurisdiction for housing assistance. (See City of Tustin Housing Element) The Housing Element of the City of Tustin proposed the allocation of tax increment funds (20%) for housing assistance to low income households. With the diminishing of federal and state funds for housing assistance, the housing set-aside of tax increment revenues appears as the only viable alternative to provide housing accommodations for low income families. Ce Existing Economic Conditions 1. The following industries and commercial establishments are located within the area: ASSESSORS PARCEL OW#ERSHZP USE 430-253-03 430-251-04 430-251-03 430-251-09,10 430-251-07,08 430-253-05 430-261-02 430-261-03,05,06 430-261-09 Amplyco Properties Harry J. O'Donnell Harry J. O'Donnell Martin Enterprises Coors Distributing Santa Fe Land Koll Co. E1 Paso Polyfins Co. John Underwood Champion Plywood Products Wickes Building Materials Nurseryland Garden Center Kerr Glass Warehouse Coors Beer Distributing Vacant R&D Building Business Center Mixed (Industrial,retail+service) Plastic Products Manuf. Food Products Warehouse 430-262-03 Foremost-McKesson Chemical Warehouse and Distribution 430-262-05 Enterprise 7 Protection Management Volunteer Health Care 430-212-06 Reed LeVecke Liquor Distribution Report page seven A portion of the area at Red Hill and Edinger has been approved as the site of a development by Pacific Bell, a public utility. The proposed 453,000 sq. ft. structure will use-up all of the capacity of the road system to accommodate the workers and will require staggered employee work hours as an interim mitigating measure. V. PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT AREA A. General Financing Methods Available to the Agency. 1. Tax Increment Revenues. The primary source of funding for the Redevelopment project area is tax increment revenues pursuant to Section 33670 et. seq. of the California Health and Safety Code. 2. Assessment District. The high cost of public improvements will probably require the creation of an assessment district for a proportion of the costs of public improvements directly related to the properties within the project area. Development Fees. The City Council by Ordinance No. 930 adopted on May 20, 1985, imposed a development fee upon new and redevelopment projects within the area to recoup partial costs of improvement to the circulation system. The rate imposed by type of use is as follows: Commercial/Of fi ce R&D Industrial B. Estimated Project Costs $2.60 per sq. ft. of building area $1.80 per sq. ft. of building area $1.00 per sq. ft. of building area Transportation improvements alone will require as expenditure between $10.6 million and $13.2 million, depending upon the alternative design selected for the extension of Newport Avenue. (Source: Table IV-2, South Newport-Edinger Circulation Study, Austin-Foust Associates.) Flood control facilities and public improvements for existing properties are estimated at an additional $1.4 million, for a total project cost ranging from $11 to $14.6 million. C. Proposed Financing Methods The 1984-85 Value of property within the project area as assessed by the Orange County Tax Assessor is $32,373,868 and $11,714,840 as assessed by the State Board of Equalization for a total assessed value of $44,088,703 for the base year. Tax increment, less the 20% housing set-aside, will range from $631,000 to $1,262,000 over a ten year period commencing in 1986-87. Report page eight A projection of revenues to the Redevelopment Agency and city General Fund is shown by the report of Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Appendix A. Battle-Wells Associates have been commissioned to determine the bonding capabilities of the Redevelopment Agency from the tax incremental revenue of the project area. Circulation improvement fees are projected to generate $5 million over the life of the project with the balance of improvement costs to be financed by the Redevelopment Agency. Pending further analysis, it is assumed that the net proceeds of tax increments will be required to finance public improvements. Deducted from the gross tax increment from the project area are: 1. 20% of revenues for housing assistance 2. $2,000 per year after 1990 payable to the O.C. Water District. 3. Entitlement of increases in the assessed value of taxable property in the project area (2%) as of the base year, pursuant to Section 33676 of the Community Redevelopment Law. Tax Increment Limitations and Requirements Due to the potential time lag between the construction and financing of public improvements and the development and redevelopment of private properties, tax increment revenues will not accrue to the Agency at an equal or constant rate. Only upon ultimate development will tax revenues be adequate to finance public improvements. For the above stated reason, the maximum tax increment that could be realized from the project upon ultimate potential development is established as the tax increment limitation of $2.5 million per year. It is also noted that the tax increment is reduced by the obligations listed in Section C, above, and by an understanding between the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency and the County Administrative Office whereby funds in excess of those required for debt service and housing set-aside would revert to the County of Orange for allocation to County governed taxing districts and agencies. The South/Central Redevelopment Project was adopted on August 1, 1983 with a thirty year life. this limitation upon bonded indebtedness is determined to be adequate for the amended project area. VI. PLAN AND METHOD OF RELOCATION Minimal displacement is anticipated within the project amendment area due to the transitional nature of businesses and the availability of vacant land. There are no residential dwelling units within the area and no relocation or housing requirements for displaced families. In the event that implementation of the project requires relocation of businesses or industries, relocation assistance will be provided pursuant to existing law and Section IV of the Redevelopment Plan of the South/Central Project. Report page nine VII ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY PLAN There are no significant differences between the preliminary plan and the proposed redevelopment plan amendment. Further analysis of tax revenues confirm initial estimates. Area boundaries remain as initially proposed. The only significant change is the commencement of construction of an office and communications center by Pacific Bell on the northeasterly boundaries of the project area at Red Hill and Edinger. VIII REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission conducted an advertised public hearing on June 10, 1985 to consider Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR 85-1) for the South/Central Redevelopment Project Amendment. were received from the Public Utilities Commission and the city Communications of Santa Ana. The letters were acknowledged and staff was directed to respond to the concerns of the city of Santa Aha. The Commission's findings are incorporated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2241 and the minutes of the meeting of June 10, 1985 as extracted and incorporated herein. The findings and recommendations are as follows: Draft EIR 85-i adequately address the environmental impact of the proposed project; provides mitigating measures; and should be certified by the City Council. 2. The South/Central Redevelopment Project Amendment is in conformance with the applicable elements of the Tustin General Plan. The Commission recommends that Section 600, Limitations on Finances, be ,me.n.ded to read. The average yearly tax increment which may be collec sna~l not exceed 2,5 million dollars," and Section 700. Limitation on .Bonded Indebtedness, be amended to read: "The South/Central Redevelopment Area may not exceed fifteen million of ,,outstanding bonded indebtedness to be paid for through tax increment funds. 4. The Commission recommends to the Redevelopment Agency and City Counci~/z that the South/Central Redevelopment Project Plan Amendment be approved and adopted. IX PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE RECORD The Project Area Committee reviewed the Project Amendment Plan during its preparation and Draft Environmental Impact Report 8S.1 Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1985 page nine 10. VARIANCE 85-3 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: James Needham on behalf of Basic Shelter, Inc. 510 S. "C" Street Authorization to vary from the requirements for the width of the lot and the size of garages in the multi-family residential (R-3) zone Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Chairmen White opened the public hearing at 10:35 p.m. James Needham, applicant, made himself available for questions. White closed the hearing at 10:38 p.m. Puckett moved, McCarthy second to approve Variance 85-3 by approving Resolution 22¢2. Motion carried 4-0. 11. YORBA STREET STUDY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 85-1 ZONE CHANGE 85-5 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 9 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: City of Tustin Certain properties located on Yorba Street between First Street and Irvine Boulevard. To amend the General Plan designations, zoning designations and to create a specific plan establishing development guidelines Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Chairman White opened the public hearing at 10:46 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed the hearing at 10:46 p.m. Well moved, Puckett second to approve General Plan Amendment No. 85-1. Motion carried 4-0. Puckett moved, Well second to approve Zone Change 85-5. Motion carried 4-0. Puckett moved, Weil second to approve Specific Plan No. 9. Motion carried 4-0. 12. SOUTH/CENTRAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT DEIR AND PROJECT PLAN Review and consideration of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR 85-1) for the proposed amendment to the South/Central Redevelopment Project. The subject properties are located in the territory bounded by Edinger, Redhill Avenue, Valencia, and the Costa Mesa (SR-55) Freeway. Copies of the Draft EIR are available for inspection at the Community Development Department in Tustin City Hall and the Tustin Branch of the Orange County Library. Presentation: Dr. R. Kenneth Fleagle, Consultant Chairman White opened the public hearing at 11:00 p.m. Seeing no onew~shin~ to speak he closed the hearing at 11:00 p.m. Weil moved, McCarthy second to approve by adopting Resolution 2241. Motion carried 4-0. Puckett moved, Well second to authorize by Minute Order a response to the City of Santa Aha. EXHIBIT "D" 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 141 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2241 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING APROVAL OF THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AMENDMENT AND CERTIFICATION OF EIR 85-1 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR 85-1) has been prepared, circulated, and noticed for public hearing on June 10, 1985 for the purpose of e~aluating the environmental impact of the proposed amendment to the South/Central Redevelopment Project Area. Oral and written comments have been received pertaining to DEIR 85-1 and have been incorporated, with responses, in the minutes of the Commission meeting and the Draft EIR. The proposed South/Central Redevelopment Project Amendment is in conformance with the Preliminary Plan as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2197. II. D. The proposed South/Central Redevelopment Project Amendment is in conformance with the General Plan of the city of Tustin. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the city of Tustin as follows: 'A. That Draft EIR 85-1 be certified as having adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the proposed amendments and that mitigating measures have been proposed. B. That the proposed amendment to the South/Central Redevelopment Project Area is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan and should be adopted by the Redevelopment Agency and City Council. C. That Sections (600) Limitations on Finances and (700) Limitation on Bonded Indebtedness of the South Central Project Plan should be amended to authorize 2.5 million dollars annual increment and 15 million of outstanding bonded indebtedness to be paid for through tax increment funds. PASSED AND ADOPTED at Commission held on the .//~,~. DONN A ORR, Recording Secretary a regular me~e~ing of the Tustin Planning day of ~/~K~(~c~ J~' , 1985. RONALD H. WHITE,'Chairman EXHIBIT "D" STATE O~ CALIFORNIA) COUNTY CITY O~ TUSTIN ) I, DONNA ORR, the undersigned, hereby certify t~at I am the Recording Secret~r~ of the Planning Commission ~f the City of Tustin, California; Sat Resolution No. ~.-5//~ was duly passed and adopted,a~t a regular~eting of the Tusti~Pl~'ning Co~ission, held on the /~J day of //~~ , ~ ~. Recordin~ Secreta~ May 28, 1985 Honorable Chairman Frank Greinke and Members Tustln Redevelopment Agency 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Honorable Chairman and Members: The Advisory Committee of the South/Central Redevelopment Project has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report and the proposed amendment to the South/Central Redevelopment Project. The Committee finds that the Environmental Impact Report addresses their concerns, and by unanimous action of the Committee on May 15, 1985 endorses and recommends approval of the South/Central Redevelopment Project Amendment. Sincerely, LAWRENCE E. SUTHER~/AND,~-~ Chairman / * South/Central Advisory Committee LS:RKF:do EXHIBIT "E" MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT May 15, 198~ I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairmen Sutherland at 7:30 p.m. in the conference room at City Hall, 300 Centennial Way. II. ROLL CALL Committee members present: Lawrence E. Sutherland, Chairman Elmo Anderson Jeffrey K. Gwin Mary Lilly Committee members absent: Jori Harrison Jeff McElderry III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES By unanimous consent, the minutes of the meeting of April 10, 1985 were approved as drafted. IV. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION The Draft Environmental Impact Report was reviewed and findings discussed. Questions were related to assumptions in the appendix, responses to other agencies, new employees in the area, and rate of development. V. ACTIONS 1. The Committee determined that the Environmental Impact Report, upon initial review, addressed the concerns of the Committee. Members of the Committee were to direct individual comments to the secretary, who would share the comments with other members, and the chair would call a meeting if deemed desirable. Advisory Committee Minutes May 15, 1985 page two It was moved by Gwin, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the Redevelopment Agency and City Council approval and endorsement of the Redevelopment Plan for the South/Central Project Amendment. Ayes: Anderson Gwin Lilly Sutherland Noes: None Absent: McElderry Harrison VI. ADJOURNMENT At 8:35 p.m. the Chairman adjourned the meeting to the next meeting to be held upon call of the Chair. R. KENNETH FLEAGLE L/ Secretary LAWRENCE E. HERLAJ~D, ~,~ Chairman / ' MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE SOUTN/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT April 10, 1985 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Sutherland at 7:45 p.m. in the conference room at City ~all, 300 Centennial Way. II. ROLL CALL III. IV. Committee .members present: Committee members absent: Staff members present: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION Lawrence E. Sutherland, Chairman Elmo Anderson Jeffrey K. Gwfn Jeff McElderry (arrived late) Jon Harrison Mary Lilly Dr. R. Kenneth Fleagle, Consultant Dr. Fleagle furnished committee members with copies of the South/Central Redevelopment Plan adopted August i, 1983 and the proposed amendments to the plan. Discussions were related to the ~eans of financing public improvements, employment estimates for the Pac Bell project alternative traffic routes, relationship to SR 55 improvements, housing accommodations and timing of the project. ' ACTION The committee requested that the Environmental Impact Report for the project address the proposed Valencia on and off ramp to the SR 55 freeway in reference to other SR 55 improvements, including any proposals for modification and/or elimination of the McFadden/Sycamore ramps. 2. The committee requested an opportunity to review the draft EIR. V. ADJOURNMENT At 9:00 p.m. the Chairman adjourned the meeting to the next meeting to be held upon call of the chair, upon receipt of the draft EIR. R. KENNETH FLEAGLE,~/ Secretary LAWRENCE E. SUTH~EJ~LAND Chairman J Report page ten Enclosed herewith is the report from the Committee Chairman, Lawrence E. Sutherland, stating that the Committee endorses and recommends approval of the South/Central Redevelopment Project Amendment. The minutes of the meetings held on April 10, 1985 and May 15, 1985 are attached as Exhibits. PROJECT AREA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Environmental Impact Report 85-1 for the South/Central Redevelopment Project Plan Amendment appears as Appendix B. The Planning Commission conducted an advertised public hearing on June 10, 1985 on the Draft EIR 85-1 for the project. No public testimony was received. Two letters of comment were received, one from the PUC Commission and one from the city of Santa Aha. Subsequent to the hearing, comments have been received from the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. Comments and responses are appendixed to the Draft EIR. The Environmental Impact Report incorporates the neighborhood impact report. XI REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER The Auditor-Controller of the County of Orange prepared and distributed a Fiscal Impact Report for the subject project on January 30, 1985. The report is shown as Exhibit F. The report indicates a total AV within the area of $32,373,863 which generates $48,338 revenue to the city of Tusttn. Based on county-wide average growth in assessed value, the 1985-86 Increment Tax Revenue Estimate is $19,880. The assessed value of property assessed by the Board of Equalization is $11,714,840. Total AV for the base year is $44,122,283. Tax revenues and incremental revenue to the Redevelopment Agency is more fully discussed in the Financial Report contained in Appendix A. XII ANALYSIS OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER'S REPORT Only the city of Tustin and East Orange County Water District have a taxable value within the project area that exceeds one (1%) percent of their total assessed value. The area represents .9835 percent of the assessed value within the district boundaries of the Tustin Unified School District. In terms of tax revenue from the project area, the following agencies receive the major portion of tax receipts: Tustin Unified School District County General Fund City of Tustin 153,247 S4,642 48,338 256,227 Report page eleven The remaining 37 (37~) percent ($92,547) is shared by 14 other taxing agencies. The Orange County Water District receives $1,787 per year in taxes, based on 1984-85 base year. Whereas, their sole source of funding is derived from the property tax, the Redevelopment Agency has consented to an annual contribution of $2,000 per year effective fiscal year 1990-91. It is assumed that the school district will request, as required by law, the 2~ pass through of increased value, unless an agreement provides otherwise. A Fiscal Review Committee was not created and the analysis of fiscal impact is based on the Auditor-Controller Report of January 30, 1985, previously identified as Exhibit F. XIII CONSULTATIONS WITH COUNTY AND AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES A. NOTICE AND INVITATION By letter of February 25, 1985, copy shown as Exhibit G, all taxing agencies within the project area were furnished a copy of the Preliminary Report, South/Central Redevelopment Project Amendment, and invited to discuss the proposed amendment. B. RESPONSES AND CONSULTATIONS The Orange County Water District requested a meeting which was held on March 20, 1985, at which time an agreement was proposed for the Redevelopment Agency to pay the sum of $2,000 per year to the Orange County Water District effective FY 1990-91, in lieu of taxes or pass through agreement, in order to alleviate any financial detriment to the district caused by increased demand for services within the area. The agreement was approved by the Redevelopment Agency on April 15, lg85. A meeting was held with representatives of the County Administrative Office on March 25, 1985. An understanding was reached that the County's interest in tax increment revenue would be subservient to any annual tax increment required to finance the public improvements and housing set-aside funds. A meeting was held on May g, 1985 with Tustin Unified School District representative and the Director of Community Development to discuss the potential of a contribution from the Redevelopment Agency to the Tustln Unified School District in lieu of a pass through agreement or the entitlement to the 2~ increment upon the base year valuation. A fiscal review committee was not called for and the Redevelopment Agency proceeded on the premise that the County will be responsible for allocating its share of tax increment to County-governed taxing districts and agencies from any surplus funds not required for housing and debt service. OF ~E OFFICE OF AUDITOR-CONTROLLER Januar7 30, 1985 S. E, LEWIS AUDI TOE'CONTROLLER FINANCE BUILDING 530 NORTH BROADWAY I~. O. aOX TEL ~[~'HON E: 834-S'4S0 AREA COO~ 714 SUBJECT: South/Central Redevelopment Project Amendment Pursuant to Section 33328 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, you will find enclosed your copy of the Fisca3_Impact Report for the subject redevelopment agency. Fur=her inquiries may be directed to the: County of Orange Auditor-Controller's Office Att. n: Tax Section 630 N. Broadway P. O. Box 567 Santa Aha, CA 92702-0567 Accountant Tax Unit MTM:ei Enclosure TABLE I - HEALTH & SAFETY - CODE 33328 (A) CITY OF TUSTIN CRA SOUTH/CENTRAL AMENDMENT 1984-85 BASE YEAR ASSESSM~gT ROLL Secured Assessed Value - Local Roll State Board of Equalization - Public Utility P~ll Unsecured Assessed Value - Local Roll Total Assessed Value within the Project $26,669,879 5,703,984 $32,373,863 * Not Available At This Time TABLE II - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (B) CITY CF TUSTIN CRA SOUTH/CENTRAL AMENDmeNT .REPORT OF IDENTIFICATION OF TAXING DISTR/CTS WITHIN THE PROJECT The District Numbers and the Taxing Agencies' Names are: 001E 002A 063B 500A 560B 600A 60lA 703A 707A 710A 713A 744A 803A 820P 863B 922A 948A 960A 961A County General (excluding CSFP) Orange County P~blic Library Tustin City Saddleback Comity College DiStrict Tustin Unified School District - Tustin Elem. Department of Education - School Modification Aid Department of Education - School Institution Tuition Tax Orange County Ce~tery District No. 1 Orange County Transit District Orange County Flood Control District Orange County Harbors, Beaches & Parks Orange County Vector Control District East Orange County Water District Metropolitan Water District - MWDOC - Remainder Area Municipal Water District Orange County - Orig. Area Orange County Sanitation District #7 Orange County Street Lighting Assessment Dist. ~1 Orange County Water District Orange County Water - Water Reserve o IIIlltllllllllllll TABLE IV - HF~%LTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (D) CITY OF TUSTIN CRA SOUTH/CENTRAL AMENDMENT REPORT OF TOT~tL AD VALOR]EM REVENUE EACH DISTRICT HAS AVAILABLE FROM WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE PROJECT The revenue data necessary to complete this section of the Fiscal Review Report does not currently exist because of the impact of Assembly Bill 8. An inordinate manual effort and expense would be required of the County Auditor-Controller's staff to gather any reliable substitute data. Therefore, the Fiscal Review Report does not contain the total Ad Valorem Revenue information for the project area. There has been included, however~ a supplemental table of comparative assessed values for each taxing district to give a relative indication of Base Year Revenue percentage given up to the CRA. See Table IV (D), Supplement. o o o 0 TABLE IV - H~ALTH & SAFETY CODE '33328 (F) CiTY CF TUSTIN CRA SOUTH/CENTRAL AMENDMENT REPORT OF ASSESSED VALUATION BY BLOCK WITHIN THE PROJECT Health and Safety Code, Section 33328 (f) requires: "The assessed valuation of the project area, by block for the preceding five years, except for state assessed property on the board roll." The assessed valuation data necessary to complete this section of the Fiscal Review Report does not exist because the valuation files maintained by the County do not contain historical assessed values by block. An inordinate manual effort and expense would be required of the County Assessor's and County Auditor's staff to gather any reliable substitute data. Therefore, the Fiscal Review Repot= does not contain the preceding five-year assessed valuation information for the project area. We are however, providing five year assessed valuation information for the entire city: FCV 1984-85 FCV 1983-84 FCV 1982-83 FCV 1981-82 A/V 1980-81 FCV 1980-81 Total Secured Unsecured Total $1,528,424,985 1,286,977,030 1,209,413,248 1,058,416,970 209,974,397 839,897,588 $161,082,292 171,801,766 161,959,551 112,225,148 23,295,320 93,181,280 $1,689,507,277 1,458,778,796 1,371,372,799 1,170,642,118 233,269,717 933,078,868 FCV = F%111 Cash Value A/V = Assessed Value FCV = 4 Times A/V Amount TABLE VI - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (E) CITY ©F ~"~JSTIN CRA SOUTH/CENTRAL AMENDMENT REPORT OF AGENCY'S REVENUE IN FIRST YEAR The Auditor-Controller has been advised by the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency that no major structures and improvements will be made within the Project boundaries during the first year, so therefore we anticipate a conser- vative growth in value of the area within the Project boun- daries to increase by only 5.7 percent. Total 1984-85 Base Year Revenue $348,773.98 Total Expected Percentage Increase in Value 5.7% 1985-86 Increment Tax Revenue Estimate $ 19,880.12 March 6, 1985 Municipal Water District Orange County 1950 E. 17th Street Santa Aha, Ca. 92701 SUBJECT: PRELIMINA~RY REPORT, SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AMENDMENT Ladies/Gentlemen: Pursuant to Section 33344.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, transmitted herewith is a Preliminary Report in Justification of the proposed amendment to the South/Central Redevelopment Project. A Fiscal Impact Report was prepared and distributed to the taxing entities by the Orange County Auditor-Controller on January 30, 1985. In summary, the proposed redevelopment project amendment will enable the development and redevelopment of + 64 acres of industrially zoned land by the construction of major traffic arte-Fial improvements including a grade separation of Newport Avenue extension across the ATSF Railroad and a new off and on-ramp to the Costa Mesa Freeway (Route SR-55). Development of the land area cannot be accommodated without improvements to the circulation system and the major traffic improvements cannot be constructed without the assistance of the Redevelopment Agency. I will be pleased to discuss this proposed amendment with you. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM A. HUSTON, City Manager Executive Director, Tustin Redevelopment Agency WH:RKF:do EXHIBIT "G" 300 Ce~tte~.~ial Way · T. sti,I, C~lifor,lia 92680 · (714) 544-8890 APPENDIX "A" FISCAL IMPACT SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AMENDMENT CITY OF TUST1N REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPENDIX "A" FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ~ENDMENT Prepared for: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 May 1, 1985 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 11661 San Vicen~e 8oulevarc~ Su~e 509 LOS Ange+es, California 90049 (213) 820-2680 STANLEY R. HOFFMAN A S S O C I A T E $ TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ...................... iii Chapter 1. 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. Introduction ....................... 1 Purpose of Study ..................... 2 Approach ......................... 2 Overview ......................... 3 Chapter 2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. Summary ......................... 4 Development Scenarios .................. 4 Public Infrastructure .................. 6 Projected Fiscal Impacts ................. 7 Chapter 3. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. Major Assumptions .................... 11 General Assumptions ................... 11 Market Assumptions .................... 11 Emploj~nent Assumptions .................. 13 Fiscal Assumptions .................... 13 Chapter 4. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. Public Infrastructure Description of Alternative Scenarios ........... 20 Existing Development in Amendment Area .......... 21 Vacant Land and State Assessed Property ........ 23 Scenario 1 Development .................. 23 Scenario 2 Development .................. 25 Scenario 3 Development .................. 25 .................. 26 -i - Chapter 5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. Chapter 6. 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Fiscal Impacts of Alternative Scenarios ......... 30 Summary of Net Recurring Fiscal Impacts ......... 30 · . 33 Detailed Recurring Revenues ............. Detailed Recurring Costs ................. 38 One-Time Fees and Charges ............... 40 Property Tax Increment .................. 42 Projected Assessed Valuation ............... 42 Phasing of Valuation Increment .............. 45 Property Tax Increment .................. 46 Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Schedule of Parcel Acreages and 1984-85 Assessed Valuations ................... 49 Summary of Fiscal Impacts on City of Tustin, Existing Development in Amendment Area ......... 50 Detailed Calculations of Property Tax Increment ..... 51 -ii - LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2-1 Sunmary of Existing Land Uses and Proposed Development .... 5 2-2 Summary of Recurring Revenues and Costs at Buildout ...... 8 2-3 Sunmary of Projected Annual Tax Increment .' .......... 10 4-1 Summary of 1984-85 Assessed Valuation by Land Uses: Local and State Assessed Property ............... 22 4-2 Summary of Existing and Proposed Land Uses .......... 24 4-3 Schedule of Streets and Roads Improvements in Amendment Area 29 5-1 Summary of Recurring Revenues and Costs at 8uildout ...... 31 5-2 Distribution of Recurring Revenues and Costs at Buildout . . . 34 6-1 Assessed Valuation of Alternative Development Scenarios .... 43 6-2 Assessed Valuation Increments ................. 44 6-3 Summary of Annual Tax Increment to Redevelopment Agency .... 47 C-1 Detailed Calculation of Tax Increment: C-2 Detailed Calculation of Tax Increment: C-3 Detailed Calculation of Tax Increment: Scenario i ...... 51 Scenario 2 ...... 52 Scenario 3 ...... 53 - iii - CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The South/Central Redevelopment Project was established in 1983. The Tustin Redevelopment Agency has recently proposed to amend the South/Central Redevelopment Project Area in order to include the area south of Edinger Street, bounded by Red Hill Avenue, Valencia Avenue, and the Newport Freeway. The purpose of the proposed project area amendment is to eliminate blighting influences on the amendment area, including major deficiencies in circulation and drainage facilities. The proposed amendment area is adjacent to the existing project area. Total acreage of the area is 137.46 acres, of which 108.10 are in private ownership with the remaining acreage in public right-of-way. The area is partially developed with existing uses including industrial, distribution, business park, and retail land uses. Costs of required improvements are estimated at between $12.0 million and $14.6 million. The high cost of these improvements renders the project infeasible without the participation of the Redevelopment Agency and . reliance on tax increment revenues as the primary source of funding. Other potential methods of financing include creation of an assessment district and the use of development fees. -1 - -2- 1.1 Purpose of Study This report projects the fiscal impacts of the project'area amendment on the City of Tustin, including tax increment revenues to the Redevelopment Agency. It is prepared in conjunction with preparation of an Environmental Impact Report on the development of the area. The purpose of the fiscal impact study is to assist the City of Tustin and the Tustin Redevelopment Agency by identifying and quantifying the recurring City revenues and costs, one-time fees and charges, and Redevelopment Agency property tax increment which can be expected after the proposed public improv~hents and development of the amendment area is completed. 1.2 Approach Because of uncertainty as to the exact amounts and types of development that may occur in the amendment area, three alternative development scenarios have been analyzed. These scenarios are specified on the basis of information provided by the Redevelopment Agency and are labeled as: "Scenario 1", "Scenario 2", and "Scenario 3". Revenue and cost factors for the City of Tustin are taken from ongoing work for the City of Tustin in development of a computerized model for analysis of the fiscal impacts of new development projects on the City. These factors are derived and discussed in detail in the following reports prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates: Municipal Cost Estimation Methodology, September 24, 1984. Municipal Revenue Estimation Methodology, September 24, 1984. -3- It should be noted that these factors may be updated in the near future based on more recent City budget information. Other geQeral assumptions used in making revenue and cost projections include the following: 1. Costs include annual operating and maintenance costs and do not cover capital improvements or equipment outlays. One-time revenues associated with new development are assumed to offset direct costs of processing development, except for the new construction tax, which is assumed available to fund general City services. 3. The analysis is presented in constant 1984 dollars. 1.3 Overview Chapter 2 presents a summary of the report. Chapter 3 presents major market assumptions and municipal revenue and cost factors. Chapter 4 describes existing land uses in the amendment area and proposed land uses and circulation improvements under the three Scenarios. Chapter 5 presents the projected fiscal impacts of Scenarios 1 through 3, including recurring City revenues and costs-and one-time revenues. Chapter 6 presents the projected Redevelopment Agency tax increment under each of the three Scenarios analyzed. Appendix A presents an inventory of parcels and existing development in the amendment area, and Appendix B summarizes estimated revenues and costs generated by the existing development. Appendix C presents the detailed calculation of property tax increment for the three Scenarios. CHAPTER 2 SU~R Y This report presents a fiscal impact analysis of the South/Central Redevelopment Project Area amendment, including revenues and costs to the City of Tustin and tax increment to the Tustin Redevelopment Agency. 2.1 Development Scenarios Three alternative development scenarios for the amendment area have been analyzed, including an industrial scenario based on the buildout, of existing General Plan and zoning designations, a mixed use/office scenario that would represent an intermediate intensity of development, and a maximum land use intensity development scenario. Table 2-1 summarizes land uses and proposed development under each of the three development scenarios, and the scenarios are further described below: 1. Scenario 1: Existin9 General Plan. This scenario assumes that all existing land uses are retained and that vacant parcels are developed in conformance with the existing General Plan and zoning. In addition to existing development, estimated to total 685,000 square feet, 756,000 square feet of industrial uses and 251,000 square feet of research and development uses are assumed to be constructed. The Scenario 1 assumption also assumes development of the 449,000 square foot Pacific Bell Tustin Center, since this project has already been approved. Total projected new development is 1,456,000 square feet. Total employment is projected at 4,158 jobs, including existing employment and projected new employment. -5- -6- Scenario 2: Mixed Use/Office. This scenario assumes retention of existing industrial land uses and development of mixed office, o~fice/comercial, industrial, and research and development la~d uses on vacant parcels and parcels to be redeveloped. Total new development is projected at 2,137,000 square feet, including 570,000 square feet of mid-rise office, 522,000 square feet of high-rise office/commercial composite uses, 240,000 square feet of industrial space, and 605,000 square feet of research and development space. Total employment is projected at 6,390. 3. Scenario 3. This scenario is considered to represent the maximum development intensity which may occur in the amendment area. Total new development is projected at 2,675,000 square feet, incluUing a 300-room hotel, 666,000 square feet of research and development space, and 1,590,000 square feet of office and composite office/commercial space. Of the new office space projected, 449,000 square feet has already been approved for the Pacific Bell Tustin Center. It is assumed that 19.4 acres of existing industrial land uses would be retained, but 15.6 acres of distribution uses and 7.0 acres of retail uses would be removed and these parcels redeveloped. Total employment is projecteO at 7,408. ~.2 Public Infrastructure The largest improvement planned is an extension of Newport Boulevard into the amendment area from its present terminus at the AT & SF Railway, northeast of the amendment area. This extension will be accomplished via an overcrossing to Edinger Street. Beyond Edinger, the extension will -7- either continue to Valencia Avenue as a new secondary arterial paralleling Del Amo Avenue (Circulation Alternative A), or connect directly into Del Amo, near Edinger (Circulation Alternative B). Additional circulation improvements planned include widening Edinger Street and Red Hill Avenue, new and upgraded traffic signals, a new on-ramp to the Newport Freeway at Valencia Avenue, and the relocation of the existing Newport Freeway off-ramp from Edinger Street to Valencia Avenue. These improvements are the same under both Circulation Alternatives A and B. 2.3 Projected Fiscal Impacts Recurring Revenue Cost Balance~ City of Tustin. Table 2-2 presents projected recurring fiscal impacts to the City of Tustin General Fund for Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, assuming the Circulation Alternative A alignment of the Newport Boulevard extension in all cases. Projected recurring revenue/cost balances are a positive $91,936 for Scenario 1, a negative $61,324 for Scenario 2, and a positive $449,944 for Scenario 3. These figures include the City's share of property taxes currently generated by the amendment area, but not the tax increment generated by new development. If Circulation Alternative B is assumed, then the net impact would be more favorable by about $11,000, for all development scenarios. One-Time Fees and Char~es~ City of Tustin. One times fees projected i~clude building permits, plan check fees, and the new construction tax. These fees are projected to total about $477 thousand for Scenario 1, about $851 thousand for Scenario 2, and $1.0 million for Scenario 3. The new construction tax, which goes into the General Fund, varies from about 25 to 30 percent of the total one-time fees for the three scenarios. -8- TABLE 2-2 SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AMENDMENT SUMMARY OF RECURRING REVENUES AND COSTS AT BUILDOUT {In Constant 1984 Dollars} Scenario t Existing General Plan Scenario 2 Mixed Use/ Office ** Recurring Revenues - New Development Property tax (1984-85,frozen) existing distribution existing retail vacant/under devpmt. {inc. Pac Bell} other state assessed property total property tax Transfer tax Sales tax Transient occupancy tax Business license tax Utility franchises Other revenues Total Revenues ** Recurring Costs Police Public works Citywide overhead Fire protection Total Costs - New Development Recurring Revenue/Cost Balance, N~w Development Areas Add: Recurring Revenue/Cost Balance, Existing Development to be Retained: Industrial Distribution Commercial NET RECURRING FISCAL IMPACT, CITY OF TUSTIN GENERAL FUND Scenario 3 Mixed Use/ Maximum $8,325 $8,325 1,565 1,565 $17,571 17,571 17,571 826 826 826 18,396 28,287 28,287 4,738 6,864 7,633 140,980 274,300 488,380 0 0 420,480 18,334 39,431 48,279 13,281 24,158 32,578 30,522 50,092 67,110 $226,251 $423,132 $1,092,747 $136,885 $300,185 81,855 81,855 21,765 38,013 68,513 123,675 $309,017 $543,728 ($82,766) ($120,596 59,272 37,027 78,403 59,272 ($61,324 $91,936 $419,161 81,855 49,851 151,208 $702,075 $390,672 59,272 $449,944 Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates - 9- Property Tax Increment, ~ity of Tustin Redevelopment A~ency. If, as proposed, the study area is incorporated into the South Central Redevelo~ent Project Area, then all incremental property taxes will accrue to the Tustin Redevelopment Agency. Of the total tax increment revenues, state law requires that 20 percent be used for housing purposes. The remaining revenues may be used for Redevelopment Agency debt service. Table 2-3 presents projected net property tax increment to the Tustin Redevelopment Agency after subtracting the 20 percent for housing purposes, for each fiscal year from the current year until 1995-96. For purposes of estimating annual increases in tax increment as the area develops, it is assumed that assessed valuation increases evenly over a ten year development period, with the first increment attributable to development added to the tax rolls for the 1986-87 fiscal year. For Scenario 1, the net available tax increment after deducting the housing set-aside is projected at $118 thousand in 1986-87, increasing to $570 thousand in 1990-91 and $1.16 million in 1995-96. For Scenario 2, net tax increment revenues are projected at $194 thousand in 1986-87, increasing to $953 thousand in 1990-91 and $1.94 million in 1995-96. For Scenario 3, the available tax increment is projected at $231 thousand in 1986-87, increasing to $1.14 million in 1990-91 and $2.32 million in 1995-96. -10- TABLE 2-3 SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AMENDMENT SUMMARY OF PROJECTED ANNUAL TAX INCREMENT TO TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ NET OF 20 PERCENT HOUSING SET-ASIDE ;~;;; {In Thousands of Dollars} Fiscal Year Scenario 1 Existing General Plan Scenario 2 Mixed Use/ Office Scenario 3 Mixed Use/ Maximum 1984-85 (base year} $0 $0 $0 1985-86 7 7 7 1986-87 118 194 231 1987-88 230 382 456 ~988-89 343 . 571 682 1989-90 456 761 910 1990-91 570 953 1,140 1991-92 685 1,145 1,371 1992-93 800 1,339 1,603 1993-94 916 1,534 1,837 1994-95 1,033 1,730 2,072 1995-96 1,159 1,942 2,325 Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates CHAPTER 3 MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS 3.1 General Assumptions 1. Future costs and revenues are presented in constant 1984 dollars, 'without adjustment for anticipated inflation. Service costs are projected under the assumption that current citywide service standards will be maintained after project buildout. It is recognized, however, that service standards may change in the future and that fiscal impacts would be affected accordingly. 3. Existing tax and fee rates are assumed to remain unchanged through project buildout. Only the fiscal impacts related to City general fund-supported services have been projected. Those services provided by self- supporting agencies and City enterprise funds have not been included. 3.2 Market Assumptions 1. Property Valuation. Property valuation assumptions are based on , typical land and construction values for the area, based on known costs for some developments, such as the Pacific Bell Tustin Center, and on discussion with staff of the Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation. Land value assumptions and building value assumptions, including construction value, site improvements, and building and tenant improvements are presented below: oll- -12- Type of Development Land Value/Sq.Ft. Building Value/Sq. Ft. Mid-rise office $13 $90 Hi'h-rise office $15 $120 Industrial $10 $40 Research and Development $10 $40 Retail $10 $50 Hotel 15% of building value $100,O00/room Valuation of unsecured property is projected at $15 per square foot of non-residential development. Unsecured property includes trade fixtures and equipment. Unsecured valuation for the hotel is assumed to be $7,500 per room. Sales Generation. The following annual sales generation factors have been assumed for purposes of projected sales tax revenues to the City of Tustin: Ground floor retail: Industrial: Research and development: Hotel: $100 per square foot $14 per square foot $14 per square foot 50 percent of room receipts The sales generation factor for ground floor retail is based on an analysis of the mix of support retail in major employment developments. The industrial/R & D factor is consistent with existing generation in the City. Hotel retail sales of 50 percent of room rates, are conservatively estimated. According to Pannell Kerr Foster, Trends in the Hotel -13- Industry, 1984~ food and beverage sales represented 57.4 percent of room rental receipts {average for 352 transient hotels} for 1983. 3.3 Employment Assumptions Emplo~nent generated from the development of the proposed project is projected under the following average employee space utilization assumptions: Mid-rise office: High-rise office: Industrial: Research and Development: Retail: Hotel: 310 square feet per employee 310 square feet per employee 700 square feet per employee 350 square feet per employee 500 square feet per employee 1 employee per hotel room 3.4 Fiscal Assumptions Recurring Revenues 1. Property Tax. Based on information from the Orange County Auditor- Controller's Office, the City of Tustin General Fund receives 13.0 percent of the total one percent property tax. The remainder of property tax revenues go to the County, school districts and special districts. Property Tranfer Tax. Real property transfer tax revenues to the City are assumed to be 0.055 percent of the sales price of property which changes ownership. Annual turnover rates are assumed to be 5 percent for office, retail, and hotel uses and 10 percent for industrial uses. J Sales Tax. Sales tax projections are based on taxable sales · generation factors presented above, with the additional assumption that the City of Tustin will receive revenues corresponding to 1 percent of all taxable sales. Transient Occupanc~ Tax. Transient occupancy taxes have been projected assuming an 80 percent occupancy rate and a $80 room rate. While motor lodges in the neighboring communities tend to have lower average room rates, an examination of the American Automobile Association's 1985 California/Nevada TourBook for the area shows that an $80 room rate is comparable to current rates for first class business-oriented hotels in the Irvine/Costa Mesa area. The rate of transient occupancy tax is assumed to be 6 percent. Business License Taxes. Business license taxes are estimated baseU on City of Tustin budget and land use data and have been calculated using the following factors: Office: Retail: Industrial: Research and Development: Hotel: $0.0252 per square foot $0.0315 per square foot $0.0070 per square foot $0.0070 per square foot $2.00 per hotel room Franchise Taxes. Franchise taxes are paid annually to the City of Tustin by the electricity, gas, cable television, and refuse utilities operating within the City. In this report, the franchise tax is 15- estimated only for the electric, natural gas and refuse utilities, reflecting the assumption that cable television wil.1 generate a' relatively small amount of tax within the South/Central Redevelopment Amendment Area. Franchise revenues are based on the City schedule and assumed usage factors. Franchise revenues for electricity and natural gas are estimated as follows: T~ype of Development Office Industrial Research & Development Retail Hotel Electricity Factor $12.04 per 1,000 sq. ft. $4.44 per 1,000 sq. ft. .$4.44 per 1,000 sq. ft. $12.14 per 1,000 sq. ft. $12.14 per room Natural Gas Factor $1.81 per 1,000 sq. ft. $2.27 per 1,000 sq. ft. $2.27 per 1,000 sq. ft. $2.64 per 1,000 sq. ft. $2.64 per room The refuse franchise fee is estimated using a factor of $0.21 per 1,000 square feet for all non-residential development. Motor Vehicle Fines. Motor vehicle fines are projected at $83.89 per acre of non-residential development, based on City of Tustin budget and land use information. J General Fines. General fines are projected at $0.93 per 1,000 square feet of non-residential development, again based on City of Tustin budget and land use information. -16- 9. Miscellaneous Revenues. Miscellaneous revenues are projected at $0.294 'peK 1,000 square feet of non-residential development. 10. Use Jf Money and Property. These revenues are estimated at 1.5 percent of all other recurring revenues, based on proportions from the City's budget. Recurring Costs 1. Police Services. Based on an analysis of the City of Tustin budget for police services and land use data for the City, the following factors have been derived to estimate police service costs for patrol and investigation activities: T~pe of Development Office Industrial Research and Development Retail Patrol Factor $129.51 per 1,000 sq. ft. $26.89 per 1,000 sq. ft. $26.89 per 1,000 sq. ft. $129.51 per 1,000 sq. ft. Investigation Factor $26.85 per 1,000 sq. ft. $8.36 per 1,000 sq. ft. $8.36 per 1,000 sq. ft. $26.85 per 1,000 sq. ft. It is recognized that after development, overall patrol levels will probably be consistant throughout the area. The patrol and investigation factors for each type of land use assumed for a particular Scenario are applied to the amount of projected development, yielding a weighted overall cost for police service for each Scenario, which is specific to the mix of land uses assumed. Police Department overhead is calculated at 29.5 percent of patrol and investigative costs. -17- o Public Works Costs. Public works costs include maintenance of public streets, bridges, trails and bikeways, maintenance and operatiop of traffic signals, and street sweeping. In addition,' park landscaping, park building maintenance, lighting and irrigation, and park and roadway tree maintenance costs are included in public works costs. Based on an analysis of the City of Tustin budget, annual street maintenance costs are projected using the following factors: Pavement maintenance Traffic control Landscapin9 (arterials) Slurry seal Street sweeping Tree maintenance Arterials and Collectors $1,265 per lane mile $1,196 per lane mile $1,962 per lane mile $665 per lane mile $700 per curb mile $3,424 per lineal mile Local Streets $1,265 per lane mile $148 per lane mile $665 per lane mile $700 per curb mile $1,469 per lineal mile Traffic signal operations and maintenance costs are projected at $3,245 per signalized intersection. Storm drain maintenance is projected at $1,007 per lineal mile of storm drain. Bridge maintenance costs are projected at $1,050 per bridge per year, based on average bridge maintenance costs in the City. This factor may be low when applied to the bridge in the amendment area, as this bridge is longer than average and may require street lights. Trail and bikeway maintenance is projected at $665 per mile. e A public works department overhead rate of 23.8 percent is applied to the sum of all projected public works maintenance and operations costs. Structural Fire Protection. Costs for fire protection to the South/Central Redevelopment Amendment Area are calculated at $654 per million dollars of assessed valuation, including improvements and unsecured valuation, but not including land valuation. Because the fire contract is based on assessed valuation, fire protection costs increase with development, even when new development may decrease the risk of fire through modern construction techniques and sprinkler systems. However, in this report, fire protection costs are calculated on the basis of the increase in assessed valuation because this method simulates the way in which fire protection costs to the City are generated. Cit~wide Administration and Overhead. Citywide administrative and overhead costs include legislative, administrative and non-departmental costs. Adminstrative and overhead costs are calculated as a percentage of all other projected recurring costs. The following percentages are applied: Citywide legislative: Citywide administrative: Citywide non-departmental: 1.36 percent 5.24 percent 3.35 percent -19- One-Time Fees and Charges One-time fees and charges include building permit fees, plan check fees, and new construction taxes. Based on the City's scheddle, one-time- fees and charges are projected as follows: Building permit fee: Plan check fee: New construction tax: $2.50 per $1,000 of non-residential building valuation 65 percent of building permit fee $100 per hotel room $0.10 per square foot of non- residential development CHAPTER 4 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS The South/Central Redevelopment Project amendment area is bounded by the Newport-Costa Mesa Freeway, Edinger Street, Red Hill Avenue, and Valencia Avenue. The total area is 137.46 acres, of which 108.1 acres are privately owned, with the remainder in public rights-of-way. Total new development is projected on 85.7 acres for Scenarios 2 and 3, the mixed use/office and maximum intensity scenarios, with 19.4 acres to be retained in existing industrial uses and 3.0 acres reserved for additional public right-of-way. Under Scenario 1, the existing general plan, a total of 66.1 acres are projected in new development, with 42 acres retained in industrial, distribution, and commercial uses. Section 4.t discusses existing development in the amendment area, including distribution and retail development which is assumed to be removed for both Scenario i and Scenario 2. Section 4.1 also presents total 1984-85 assessed valuations for existing development. Section 4.2 discusses undeveloped land in the amendment area, and also summarizes assessed valuations for all state-assessed property in the area. Detailed d6scriptions of assumed development are presented in Section 4.3 for Scenario 1; in Section 4.4 for Scenario 2; and in Section 4.5 for Scenario 3. Finally, Section 4.6 discusses circulation facilities in the amendment area, including both existing facilities and proposed improvements. -20- - 21 - ¢.1 Existing Development in Amendment Area Existing development in the amendment area includes industrial, distribution, and retail land uses, on a total of about 42 acres. About 66 acres are currently vacant or under development, including 19.91 acres approved for the Pacific 8ell Tustin Center. The area was initially developed by the Santa Fe Railroad, and the Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation remains the principal owner of undeveloped land. Among the existing land uses, there are 19.36 acres of industrial uses that are assumed to be retained under all three development scenarios. Based on information from the City of Tustin, theseparcels are assumed to include 322,000 square feet of development. Total 1984-85 assessed valuation for these existing industrial uses is $22,330,000, based on information provided by the Orange County Auditor-Controller's office. Table 4-1 summarizes 1984-85 assessed valuations for all property in the amendment area, including both state-assessed and locally-assessed property, and vacant as well as developed parcels. An additional 15.6 acres of industrially-zoned land is currently used for distribution facilities. These parcels are assumed to be redeveloped under Scenarios 2 and 3, but Scenario 1 assumes that the existing uses are retained. Total space in existing development on these parcels is 272,000 square feet. As shown in Table 4-1, the total assessed valuation of these facilities is $6,405;000. Currently, there are also 7.0 acres of retail uses in the amendment area, on Edinger Street at the Newport Freeway. This site is assumed to be used 22 ' TABLE 4-1 .SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AMENDMENT SUMMARY OF lg84-85 ASSESSED VALUATION BY LAND USES LOCAL AND STATE ASSESSED PROPERTY {In Thousands) ** Locally Assessed Property Existing industrial development (to be retained, all scenarios} $22,330 Existing distribution facilities (to be retained, Scenario 1 only) 6,405 Existing retail facilities (to be retained, Scenario 1 only} 1,204 Parcels currently vacant or under development {locally assessed) 2,434 $32,373 Total local roll ** State Assessed Property ** Pacific Bell site (under development) AT & SF Railroad rights-of-way Other state assessed property Total state assessed property TOTAL 1984-85 ASSESSED VALUATION $11,080 173 462 $11,715 $44,088 Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates 23' for offices under Scenario 2, the mixed use/office scenario, and for a hotel under Scenario 3, the maximum intensity scenario. Scenario 1, the ~xisting General Plan, would preserve existing uses on this si~e as well all other existing development in the amendment area. Total space in existing retail uses on this acreage is 91,000 square feet and total 1984-85 assessed valuation is $1,204,000. 4.2 Vacant Land and State Assessed Property Parcels currently vacant or under development in the amendment area include 45.72 acres owned by Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation and the 19.91-acre Pacific Bell site. Total assessed valuation of the Santa Fe Land Company holdings is $2,434,000. The Pacific 8ell site has assessed valuation of $11,079,600 and is assessed by the State Board of Equalization. Other state-assessed property within the amendment area includes railroad rights- of-way, assessed at $173,000, and natural gas, electricity, and telephone equipment and lines assessed at a total of $462,000. 4.3 Scenario 1 Development Scenario 1 represents the existing general plan and assumes that all existing land uses are retained and that vacant parcels are developed in conformance with the existing General Plan and zoning. Existing development which is assumed to be retained totals 685,000 square feet. As shown in Table 4-2, new construction on vacant parcels of land is assumed to include 756,000 square feet of industrial uses and 251,000 square feet of research and development uses. Scenario 1 also assumes development of the 449,000-square foot Pacific Bell Tustin Center, as this 24' ' 25 - project has already been approved. Total projected new development under Scenario 1 is 1,456,000 square feet. Employment is projected to total 4,158, including existing employment and projected new'emplo~ent.- Employment is projected based on average employee space utilization factors presented in Chapter 3. 4.4 Scenario 2 Development Scenario 2 is termed the mixed use/office alternative, and it encompasses a greater variety of uses than Scenario 1. This scenario assumes retention of the existing industrial land uses, estimated at 332,000 square feet. As shown in Table 4-2, new development under Scenario 2 is assumed to include office, office/commercial, industrial, and research and development uses on vacant parcels and parcels to be redeveloped. Total new development is projected at 2,137,000 square feet, including 770,000 square feet of mid-rise office, 522,000 square feet of high-rise office/commercial composite uses, 240,000 square feet of indus?iai uses, and 605,000 square feet of research and development space. Employment is projected to total 6,390. 4.5 Scenario 3 Development Table 4-2 also presents land uses and development assumed for Scenario 3. These figures were originally developed for the circulation analysis of the South Newport/Edinger area and represent a maximum level of development intensity, yielding the worst case of traffic impacts. As shown in Table 4-2, Scenario 3 is assumed to retain 19.4 acres of existing industrial uses and to require 3.0 acres in dedications for - 26- circulation improvements. The amount of space in existing uses to be retained is assumed to be 322,000 square feet of industrial uses, based on information from City of Tustin staff. New development is planned for 85.7 acres, and is assumed to total 2,675,000 square feet based on assumptions used in the circulation analysis and in the Environmental Impact Report. Major uses under Scenario 3 include a 300-room hotel on 7.0 acres adjacent to the freeway, and 1,141,000 square feet of high-rise office/commercial development also to be located adjacent to the freeway, on 26.2 net acres. Other development assumed includes the approved 449,000 square foot Pacific Bell Tustin Center at Edinger Street and Red Hill Avenue, 660,000 square feet of research and development space, and 121,000 square feet of new industrial space. Included Within the 660,000 square feet of research and development space is the recently-constructed Tustin Research Center, with 98,000 square feet of space. Employment in new development is projected at 6,948 jobs and total employment, including existing development to be retained, is estimated at 7,408 jobs. 4.6 Public Infrastructure A primary objective of the project area amendment is to enable the use of tax increment to finance needed public works improvements, particularly circulation improvements. The railroad and the storm drain channel to the north of Edinger Street present a major barrier between the amendment area and other portions of the City. The amendment area is also lacking in storm drains. Total capital costs for required circulation and drainage improvements have been estimated at from $12.0 million to $14.6 million. - 27 - Plans for circulation improvements include the extension of Newport Boulevard into the amendment area via an overcrossing of the railroad and storm drain channel. This extension would curve south of the present alignment of Newport ~oulevard before intersecting Edinger Street. 'Beyond Edin~er, the extension is planned to follow one of two circulation alternatives: Alternative A: extension across the amendment area, to Valencia, as a new secondary arterial parallel to Del Amo Avenue, between Del Amo Avenue and the freeway. Length of this extension is estimated at 1,000 feet to Edinger plus 2,130 feet to Valencia, for a total of 3,130 feet. Alternative B: extension across Edinger at a diagonal angle, then feeding into a slightly realigned Del Amo Avenue. Length is estimated at 1,500 feet to the juncture with Del Amo. For the basic presentation of fiscal impacts, this report will assume implementaton of Alternative A, since this Alternative would have the larger maintenance costs. The difference, or savings, should Alternative B be implemented will also be presented. Public works improvements are assumed to be the same for~ll development scenarios. In addition to the Newport overcrossing and extension, planned circulation improvements include improved access to the Newport-Costa Mesa freeway, added capacity on Red Hill and Edinger, and traffic signal improvements. In connection with the freeway, plans include removal of the existing northbound freeway offramp at Edinger, and construction of a new northbound offramp and a new northbound onramp at the terminus of Valencia. Edinger Street and Red Hill Avenue will each be widened by one travel lane on segments adjacent to the amendment area, and otherwise improved to full major arterial standards. 26. Traffic signal improvements planned include the upgrading of signals at the intersections of Red Hill with Edinger and Valencia, and a new signal at Red Hill and Industrial Drive, an entrance to the amendment area. Two other ne~ signals are assumed: one on Edinger at an entrance to th~ Pacific Bell project, and a second on Edinger north of Del Amo, at the intersection with the extension of Newport Boulevard. In order to present a complete picture of the fiscal impacts of the amendment area on the City of Tustin, this study includes maintenance costs for existing streets and roads within the amendment area, as well as costs for new facilities. Table 4-3 presents a complete schedule of road segments within the amendment area, including existing facilities and planned improvements. Although not entirely within the legal boundaries of the amendment area, the full length of the Newport Boulevard extension from its present terminus is shown and has been considered a maintenance cost attributable to the project. Maintenance costs for the five signalized traffic intersections described above are also considered attributable to the amendment area, even though they are all on the edge of the area along Edinger and Red Hill. Based on the legal boundaries of the project area, and discussion with City of Tustin staff, the fiscal analysis will include costs for the full widths of R~d Hill and Valencia Avenues, but no costs for Edinger Street, except for traffic signals. For purposes of projecting storm drain maintenance costs, it is assumed that the total length of storm drain lines within the amendment area will be 70 percent of the total length of streets. . 29_ TABLE 4-3 SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AMENDMENT SCHEDULE OF STREETS AND ROADS IMPROVEMENTS IN AMENDMENT AREA MAJOR ARTERIALS - 6 lanes Red Hill storm lineal lane curb drain feet miles miles miles 2,210 2.51 0.84 0.29 SECONDARY ARTERIALS - 4 lanes Valencia Newport Blvd. extension to Valencia (Circulation Alternative A) Newport Blvd. extension to Del Amo (Circulation Alternative B) Total secondaries, Alternative A Total secondaries, Alternative B 2,530 1.92 0.96 0.34 3,130 2.37 !.19 0.41 1,500 1.14 0.57 0.20 5,660 4.29 2.14 0.75 4,030 3.05 1.53 0.53 LOCAL STREETS Del Amo Avenue Industrial Drive Woodlawn Aenue Santa Fe Drive Total Local Streets 2,130 0.81 0.81 0.28 950 0.36 0.36 0.13 600 0.23 0.23 0.08 940 0.36 0.36 0.12 4,620 1.75 1.75 0.61 Notes: 1. For purposes of the fiscal analysis, public works costs analyzed are all facilities within the boundaries of the Project Area amendment, the full width of Red Hill and Valencia Avenues, plus the proposed Boulevard extension providing access to the amendment area at Edinger. Maintenance costs for five signalized traffic intersections are also attributed to the amendment area. 2. Storm drain miles estimated at 70 percent of total length of arterial and local streets. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates CHAPTER 5 FISCAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS This chapter presents the fiscal impacts on the City of Tustin for the three development Scenarios analyzed for the proposed South/Central Redevelopment Project Area amendment. Section 5.1 summarizes the net fiscal impacts of Scenarios 1 through 3 to the City of Tustin General Fund. Sections 5.2 and 5.3 present, respectively, projected recurring revenues and recurring costs for the three scenarios analyzed in greater detail. Section 5.4 presents projected one-time revenues for the Scenario 1 through 3. For purposes of this analysis, the net fiscal impact of the new development assumed for the amendment areas is projected and presented separately from the net fiscal impact of existing development which is assumed to be retained. 5.1 SU~nary of Net Recurring Fiscal Impacts Table 5-1 presents recurring revenues, costs, and revenue/cost balances to the City of Tustin projected to result from the development of each of the three Scenarios analyzed. Total recurring revenues from new development under Scenario 1 are projected at $226.3 thousand per year by project bbildout; total recurring revenues at buildout from new development under Scenario 2 are projected at $423.1 thousand; and under Scenario 3 recurring revenues are projected at $1.09 million per year at buildout. Revenues projected under all three Scenarios include property taxes, property transfer taxes, sales taxes, business license taxes, utility 30- - 3! - TABLE 5-1 SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AMENDMENT SUMMARY OF RECURRING REVENUES AND COSTS AT~'BUILDOUT (In Constant 1984 Dollars) Scenario 1 Existing General Plan Scenario 2 Mixed Use/ Office ** Recurring Revenues - New Development ** Property tax (1984-85,frozen) existing distribution existing retail vacant/under devpmt. (inc. Pac Bell) other state assessed property total property tax Transfer tax Sales tax Transient occupancy tax Business license tax Utility franchises Other revenues Total Revenues ** Recurring Costs Police Public works Citywide overhead Fire protection - New Development ** Total Costs Recurring Revenue/Cost Balance, New Development Areas Add: Recurring Revenue/Cost Balance, Existing Development to be Retained: Industrial Distribution Commercial NET RECURRING FISCAL IMPACT, CITY OF TUSTIN GENERAL FUND $17,571 826 18,396 4,738 140,980 0 18,334 13,281 30,522 $226,251 $136,885 81,855 21,765 68,513 $309,017 ($82,766) 59,272 37,027 78,403 $91,936 $8,325 1,565 17,571 826 28,287 6,864 274,300 0 39,431 24,158 50,092 $423,132 $300,185 81,855 38,013 123,675 $543,728 ($120,596 59,272 ($61,324) Scenario 3 Mixed Use/ Maximum $8,325 1,565 17,571 826 28,287 7,633 488,380 420,480 48,279 32,578 67,110 $1,092,747 $419,161 81,855 49,851 151,208 $702,075 $390,672 59,272 $449,944 Source: Stanley R, Hoffman Associates - 32 - franchises, and other miscellaneous revenues. Scenario 3 also includes projected revenues from the transient occupancy tax. Recurring costs for the new development projected under Scenario 1 are projected at $309.0 thousand; recurring costs under Scenario 2 are projected at $543.7 thousand; and recurring costs projected under Scenario 3 are projected at $702.1 thousand. Costs projected include police, public works, fire protection, and citywide overhead. As shown in Table 5-1, the recurring revenue/cost balance from the new development assumed under both Scenarios 1 and 2 is negative, while the recurring revenue/cost balance from new development assumed under Scenario 3 is positive. Scenario 1 is projected to have a negative cost/revenue balance of $82.8 thousand; Scenario 2 is projected to have a negative cost/revenue balance of $120.6 thousand; and Scenario 3 is projected to have a positive cost/revenue balance of $390.7 thousand. These cost/revenue balances include the projected costs and revenues attributed to new development only, and do not include the fiscal impacts of the existing development assumed to be retained under each scenario. Therefore, when the positive cost/revenue balance of $174.7 attributed to the existing development within the amendment area assumed to be retained under Scenario 1 is added, Scenario 1 is projected to have a positive fiscal impact of $91.9 thousand annually, as shown in Table 5-1. However, even with the addition of the $59.3 thousand positive recurring revenue/cost balance from the existing development assumed under Scenario 2, this scenario is still projected to have a negative fiscal impact of $61.3 thousand annually at buildout. 33. An additional $59.3 thousand positive recurring revenue/cost balance is added to Scenario 3 to account for existing developmen~ assumed retained, for a to~al recurring revenue/cost balance projected at $449.9 thousand. 5.2 Detailed Recurring Revenues Sales taxes are projected as the single largest source of recurring revenue under all three Scenarios, accounting for 62.3 percent of recurring revenues under Scenario 1; 64.8 percent of recurring revenues under Scenario 2; and 44.7 percent of recurring revenues under Scenario 3, as shown in Table 5-2. "Other revenues", including motor vehicle fines, general fines, miscellaneous revenue} and revenue from use of money and property, are projected as the second largest revenue source under Scenarios 1 and 2; accounting for 13.5 percent of recurring revenues under Scenario 1 and 11.8 percent of recurring revenues under Scenario 2. Revenues from the transient occupancy tax are the second largest revenue source under Scenario 3, accounting for 38.5 percent of total projected recurring revenues, with the "other revenue" category accounting for 6.1 percent of projected revenues under Scenario 3. B~siness license taxes account for 8.1 percent of projected revenues under Scenario 1; 9.3 percent of projected revenues under Scenario 2; and 4.4 percent of projected revenues under Scenario 3. Property taxes to the City's General Fund from existing development to be retained are projected to account for 8.1 percent of total revenues under Scenario 1; 6.7 percent of total revenues under Scenario 2; and 2.6 percent under Scenario 3. - 34 - TABLE 5-2 SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AMENDMENT _ DISTRIBUTION OF RECURRING REVENUES AND COSTS AT BUILDOUT (Percentage Basis) Scenario I Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Existing Mixed Use/ Mixed Use/ General Plan Office Maximum ** Recurring Revenues - New Development Property tax (1984-85,frozen) Transfer tax Sales tax Transient occupancy tax Business license tax Utility franchises Other revenues, Total 8.1% -6.7% 2.6% 2.1% 1 .'6% O. 7% 62.3% 64.8% 44.7% 0.0% 0.0% 38.5% 8.1% 9.3% 4.4% 5.9% 5.7% 3.0% 13.5% 11.8% 6.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ** Recurring Costs - New Development Police 44.3% 55.2% 59.7% Public works 26.5% 15.1% 11.7% Citywide overhead 7.0% 7.0% 7.1% Fire protection 22.2% 22.7% 21.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% * Note: Other revenues include motor vehicle fines, general fines, miscellaneous revenue, and revenue from use of money and property. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates - 35- Revenue from utility franchise fees are projected to account for 5.9 percent of recurring revenues under Scenario 1; 5.7 percent of recurring revenues under Scenario 2; and 3.0 percent under Scenario 3. The remaining 2.1, 1.6, and 0.7 percent of recurring revenues projected under the three Scenarios are accounted for by the real property transfer tax. The following sections present further detail on projected recurring revenues from the development of the South/Central Redevelopment Amendment Area under Scenarios 1, 2, and 3. Sales Taxes. Once the amendment area is fully developed, annual sales tax revenues to the City of Tustin are projected to reach $141.0 thousand under Scenario 1; $274.3 under Scenario 2; and $488.4 thousand under Scenario 3 annually, as shown in Table 5-1. Sales tax revenues are generated by the industrial and research and development uses assumed under Scenarios 1, 2, and 3; by the ground floor retail uses assumed under Scenarios 2 and 3; and by sales associated with the hotel assumed under Scenario 3. Other Revenues. Other recurring revenues to the City of Tustin are projected to total $30.5 thousand under Scenario 1; $50.1 thousand under Scenario 2; and $67.1 thousand under Scenario 3. For Scenario 1, these projected revenues include: motor vehicle fines ($5.5 thousand), general fines ($1.4 thousand), miscellaneous revenues ($428), and revenue from use of money and property ($23.2 thousand). For Scenario 2, other projected revenues include: motor vehicle fines ($7.2 thousand), general fines ($2.0 thousand), miscellaneous revenues {$628), and revenues from use of money and property ($40.3 thousand). For Scenario 3, other - 36 - projected revenues include: motor vehicle fines ($7.2 thousand), general fines {$2.3 thousand), miscellaneous revenues ($628), 'and revenues from use of money and property ($56.6 thousand). Business License Tax. Revenues from the business license tax at buildout are projected to total $18.3 thousand annually under Scenario 1; $39.4 annually under Scenario 2; and $48.3 thousand under Scenario 3. Revenues are projected based on factors presented in Chapter 3. Property Taxes. With annexation into the redevelopment project area, property tax revenues generated by the amendment area to the CitY of Tustin General Fund will be frozen at the existing level of $57.3 thousand annually for all three development scenarios. These revenues have been attributed to parcels with existing land uses assumed to be retained and parcels assumed to receive new development. Under Scenario 1, $18.4 thousand of existing property tax revenues are attributed to parcels slated for new development, including currently vacant parcels and parcels now under development. The remaining $38.9 thousand of base year revenues are attributed to existing industrial, distribution, and commercial uses which are assumed to be retained under SCenario 1. These revenues from retained development are included within the total recurring revenue/cost balances for retained development, and are shown at the bottom of Table 5-1. The recurring revenue/cost balances for retained development are presented in detail in Appendix B. - 37 - For Scenario 2, $28.3 thousand of base year property tax revenue is attributed to parcels assumed to undergo new development, including parcels that are~currently vacant or under development, and parcels with e~isting commercial and distribution uses which are assumed to be removed. The remaining $29.0 thousand of the total $57.3 thousand in base year revenues to the Tustin General Fund is attributed to existing industrial development assumed to be retained, and is included within the total revenue/cost balance of retained development, shown at the bottom of Table 5-1. Under Scenario 3, $28.3 thousand in property tax is currently generated to the Tustin general fund by currently vacant parcels in the amendment area and parcels currently occupied but assumed to be redeveloped. Property tax revenues attributed to existing industrial development which is assumed to be retained are $29.0 thousand, and are included within the figure for the net fiscal impact of retained development shown at the bottom of Table 5-1. Total 1984-85 property tax revenues to the Tustin general fund are $57.3 thousand, including all valuation within the amendment area. Utilit~ Franchise Taxes. Utility franchise taxes from the electricity, natural gas, and refuse franchises within the City of Tustin are projected to total $13.3 thousand under Scenario 1; $24.2 thousand under Scenario 2 ahd $32.6 thousand under Scenario 3, based on utility usage factors presented in Chapter 3. Real Property Transfer Tax. Projected revenues from this source are relatively small. After completion of development of the area, and annually thereafter, revenues from the property transfer tax are projected . 38 _ at $4.7 thousand under Scenario 1; $6.9 thousand under Scenario 2; and $7.6 thousand under Scenario 3. 5.3 Detailed Recurring Costs City of Tustin costs attributable to the development scenarios include police, public works, fire protection, and citywide overhead and administrative costs. Police protection costs are the largest cost item, accounting for 44.3 percent of total projected recurring costs under Scenario 1; 55.2 percent of costs projected under Scenario 2; and nearly 60 percent of total projected recurring costs under Scenario 3, as shown in Table 5-2, above. Fire protection accounts for close to 22 percent of total costs projected under all three scenarios, while public works operations and maintenance costs account for 26.5 percent of costs under Scenario 1, 15.1 percent under Scenario 2 and 11.7 percent of costs under Scenario 3. Citywide overhead and administration accounts for the remaining 7.0 percent of projected costs under Scenarios 1 and 2 and the remaining 7.1 percent of projected costs under Scenario 3. Police Protection. As shown in Table 5-1, above, police protection costs a~e projected at $136.9 thousand under Scenario 1; $300.2 thousand under Scenario 2; and $419.2 thousand under Scenario 3 upon buildout of the area. Police costs are based on factors developed for patrol and investigative services, discussed in Chapter 3, with Police Department overhead costs added as a percentage of the direct patrol and investigative costs. Fire Protection. Fire protection costs are projected to total $68.5 thousand under Scenario 1; $123.7 thousand under ScenaKio 2; and $151.2 thousand~under Scenario 3 annually when the area is fully developed-. Costs for fire protection to the South/Central Redevelopment Amendment Area are calculated at $654 per million dollars of combined assessed valuation for structures, fixtures, and unsecured property, based on the City's contract with the Orange County Fire District. Public Works Operations and Maintenance Costs. Public works costs projected include maintenance of public streets and roads, storm drains, traffic signals, and bridges, street sweeping, and costs for tree maintenance along arterial and local streets. A public works department overhead factor is applied as a percentage of projected direct operations and maintenance costs. As shown in Table 5-1, public works costs are projected at $81.9 thousand annually under all three scenarios, assuming implementation of Circulation Alternative A with Newport Boulevard extended south to Valencia Avenue, as a new secondary arterial parallel to Del Amo Avenue. For Circulation Alternative 8, with the Newport extension feeding into Del Amo, projected costs would be about $9.9 thousand lower, or a total $72.0 thousand for pOblic works maintenance. Maintenance costs for existing facilities in the amendment area as well as for planned new facilities are included in these figures. Citywide Overhead. Citywide overhead and administrative costs are projected to total $21.8 thousand under Scenario 1; $38.0 thousand under - 40 - Scenario 2; and $49.9 thousand under Scenario 3 annually upon full development of the amendment area, with Circulation Alternative A. Citywide..overhead and administrative costs are calculated as a per~entage of all other projected costs, and include citywide legislation, administration, and non-departmental costs. If Circulation Alternative 8 is assumed, projected citywide overhead costs are about $1.0 thousand lower than under Alternative A. 5.4 One-time fees and Charges One-time fees and charges projected include building permit fees, plan check fees, and new construction taxes. One-time fees are generally viewed as offsetting processing or special capital costs, and are presented separately from recurring revenues for this reason. Shown below are projected one-time fees and charges for the proposed development within the South/Central Redevelopment Area amendment under each of the three Scenarios analyzed. One-time fees and charges are projected to total $476.8 thousand under Scenario 1; $850.6 thousand under Scenario 2; and $1.034 million under Scenario 3 over the development period of the amendment area. Scenario I Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Building permit fees: $200,700 $386,025 $464,981 Plan check fees: $130,455 $250,916 $302,238 New construction tax: $145,600 $213,700 $267,100 Total $476,755 $850,641 $1,034,319 -41 Estimated building valuations for purposes of projecting these fees are based on the construction values assumed for property tax valuation purposes, presented in Chapter 3. Once building permit valuations 'have been projected, building permit fees are projected at $2.50 per $1,000 in non-residential valuation. Plan check fees are projected at 65 percent of building permit fees. New construction taxes are projected at $100 per hotel room and $0.10 per square foot for all other non-residential development. CHAPTER 6 PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT This chapter presents the analysis of property tax increment to be received by the Tustin Redevelopment Agency if the study area is incorporated into the South Central Redevelopment Project Area. Section 6.1 discusses the projected valuation of new construction for the three development scenarios. Section 6.2 discusses the assumed phasing of assessed valuation increases. Section 6.3 then presents projected tax increment revenues, projected from 1985-86 to the 1995-96 fiscal year. 6.1 Projected Assessed Valuations Table 6-1 presents projected land, building, and unsecured property valuations for the three development scenarios. These valuations are based on assumed land uses and development intensities described in Chapter 4, and valuation assumptions presented in Chapter 3. Total projected valuation of new development is projected at about $135 million for Scenario 1, $233 million for Scenario 2, and $277 million for Scenario 3. Table 6-2 presents the calculation of net valuation increment attributable t6 the three development scenarios, by netting out the existing assessed valuation of parcels which are assumed to be developed or redeveloped. For Scenario 1, all existing land uses are assumed to be retained, so only the valuation of currently vacant parcels is subtracted, yielding a net increase in assessed valuation of $122.6 million. -42- _ 43 _ TABLE 6-1 SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AMENDMENT ASSESSED VALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS. (In Thousands) Secured Land Valuation Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Hotel $0 $0 $4,500 Mid-rise office 11,080 25,062 23,037 Composite 0 1,568 3,441 Industrial 15,115 4,792 2,222 Research & Development 5,210 12,594 12,458 Total Land Valuation $31,405 $44,016 $45,658 Secured Building Valuation Hotel $0 Mid-rise office 40,000 Composite 0 Industrial 30,240 Research & Development 10,040 Total Building Valuation $80,280 S0 68,890 51,720 9,600 24,200 $154,410 $1,913 40,000 112,840 4,840 26,400 $185,993 Unsecured Valuation Hotel $0 $0 $7,008 Mid-rise office 9,375 14,190 9,375 Composite 0 7,830 17,115 Industrial 11,340 3,600 1,815 Research & Development 3,765 9,075 9,900 Total Unsecured Valuation $24,480 $34,695 $45,213 Total Assessed Valuation, New Development Hotel $0 Mid-rise office 60,455 Composite 0 Industrial 56,695 Research & Development 19,015 Total Valuation, New Development $136,165 $0 108,142 61,118 17,992 45,869 $233,121 $13,421 72,412 133,396 8,877 48,758 $276,863 Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates TABLE 6-2 SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AMENDMENT ASSESSED VALUATION INCREMENTS {Dollars in Thousands} Total Projected Valuation of New Development Less, Existing Valuations, Parcels to 8e Developed/Redeveloped: Vacant parcels Retail uses to be redeveloped Distribution uses to be redeveloped Net Assessed Valuation Increment Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Existing Mixed Use/ General Plan Office Scenario 3 Mixed Use/ Maximum $136,165 $233,121 $276,863 (13,516) (13,516) -- (1,204) -- (6,404) $122,649 $211,997 {13,516 (1,204) (6,404) $255,739 Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates . 45- For Scenarios 2 and 3, in addition to currently vacant parcels, the existi'ng retail and distribution uses are assumed to ble redeveloper, and the existing valuations of these uses as well as valuations of vacant parcels must be subtracted to determine the net assessed valuation increase. With these adjustments, total projected valuation increases are $212.0 million for Scenario 2 and $255.7 million for Scenario 3. 6.2 Phasing of Valuation Increment Based on discussions with the project manager for Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation, the major developer in the study area, it is assumed that the area will be fully developed within ten years. The exact phasing of development will depend on market and other factors and is not known at this time. For purposes of projecting annual property tax increments, it will be assumed that development occurs evenly throughout a ten-year buildout period. For each scenario, the total projected valuation increment will be brought in on a straight-line basis, ten percent each year. Due to the t~ical lag between construction and tax assessment, the first valuation from new construction is not assumed to be taxable until the 1986-87 fiscal year. The final valuation increment from development is assumed to occur in 1995-96. Based on total projected valuation increments from Table 6-2, the annual valuation increments attributable to new development are projected at $12.3 million for Scenario 1, $21.2 million for Scenario 2, and $25.6 million for Scenario 3, per year for each year 1986-87 to 1995-96. - 46 - Appendix C presents the detailed calculation of assessed valuation and property tax increments for the three scenarios. In addition to increments attributable to new development, the 2 percent annual increase in assessed valuation allowable under Proposition 13 is calculated and included in the assessed valuation increment totals. 6.3 Property Tax Increment Table 6-3 presents annual projected property tax increment to the Tustin Redevelopment Agency, if the study area is included in the South Central Project Area. For each development scenario, the annual increment is presented both before and after subtraction of the 20 percent required set- aside for low and moderate housing purposes. These figures are based on phasing and valuation information described above and on more detailed tables presented in Appendix C. For Scenario 1, Existing General Plan, the total property tax increment is projected to grow from $9 thousand in 1985-86 to $148 thousand in 1986- 87, and increasing to $1.45 million in 1995-96. The increment in the first year is attributable to the 2 percent increase on the assumed 1984-85 base year valuation. After deducting 20 percent reserved for housing purposes, the net tax increment available for other Redevelopment Agency uses is projected at $118 thousand in 1986-87, $570 thousand in 1990-gl, and $1.16 million in 1995-96. For Scenario 2, Mixed Use/Office, the total property tax increment is projected at $242 thousand in 1986-87, increasing to $2.43 million in 1995- 96. Less the housing set-aside, the net amounts available for - 47 ,cC - 48 - Redevelopment Agency purposes is projected at $194 thousand in i986-87, $953 thousand in 1990-91, and $1.94 million in 1994-95.~ For Scenario 3, total tax increment is projected at $289 thousand in I986- 87, increasing to $2.91 million in 1995-96. The amounts remaining after deducting the housing set-aside are projected to range from $231 thousand in 1986-87 to $1.14 million in 1990-91 and $2.32 million in 1995-96. It should be noted that property tax increment amounts would continue to increase even after the assumed ten year development period. The annual increase could range from a maximum of 2 percent per year, in years in which no property is reassessed, to larger increases in years when property changes ownership and is reassessed at full market value. - 49 - APPENDIX A SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AMENDMENT SCHEDULE OF PARCEL ACREAGES AND 1984-85 ASSESSED VALUATIONS (all values in thousands) Assessors Plng Parcel Area Acres Number EXISTING INDUSTRIAL {on tax rolls) 10 6.96 430-261-02 6f 1.54 430-261-03 " 430-261-05 " 430-261-06 6e 1.15 430-261-07 6d 0.60 430-261-08 6c 1.00 430-261-09 7a 2.50 430-262-03 7b 2.94 430-262-05 7c 3.28 430-262-06 19.86 .... SECURED VALUATIONS .... TOTAL Land Impvmt Personal TOTAL TOTAL ASSESSED Value Value Property SECURED UNSECURED VALUE ($OO0's) ($O00's) ($OOO's) (SO00's) ($OOO's) ($000's) Koll (ind/comm center) $3,633 Polyofins {mfg) 561 " 653 " 359 Guarriello (plastics mfg) 71 " 37 Underwood {food prod wrhs) Ll.~' Foremost-McKesson (dist) 135 Enterprise 7 (services) 685 LeVecke (liquor dist) 377 total existing industrial $2,070 $5,703 $5,703 10 571 263 834 1,556 2,603 4,812 937 5,749 332 691 691 201 273 2,275 2,548 12 49 49 318 219 648 648 277 4~2 412 1,098 1,783 155 1,938 2,251 2,628 1,130 3,758 $6,622 $8,125 $2,822 $17,570 $4,760 $22,330 EXISTING DISTRIBUTION 29 3.98 430-251-07 2h 4.43 430-251-08 2d 1.59 430-251-09 2e 2.12 430-251-10 2c 3.52 430-253-03 15.64 Coors ,D, istributi~g Martin (vac. warehouse) Champion plywood (dist) total existing distribution $435 $829 $1,264 $1,264 484 830 $860 2,174 317 2,491 345 751 1,097 44 1,141 259 435 694 694 170 364 534 281 815 $1,693 $3,209 $860 $5,763 $642 $6,405 EXISTING COMMERCIAL 2a 2.99 430-251-03 O'Donnell {nursery) 2b 3.98 430-251-04 O'Donnell {Builders Emp) 6.97 total existing commercial PARCELS VACANT OR CURRENTLY UNDER 0EVELOPMENT {locally assessed) $206 $171 $377 $20 $397 263 421 684 123 807 $469 $592 $0 $1,061 $143 $1,204 5B 9.14 430-253-05 Santa Fe Land {vacant R&D) $389 4 16.69 430-251-01 Santa Fe Land 702 2f 0.46 430-251-06 Santa Fe Land 18 5a 5.00 430-253-04 Santa Fe Land 213 9 7.45 430-261-01 Santa Fe Land 322 6b 3.28 430-261-10 Santa Fe Land 149 6a 1.28 430-261-21 Santa Fe Land 50 8 2.42 430-262-04 Santa Fe Land 137 45.72 total vacant or under development $296 $685 $685 702 702 18 18 213 2!3 322 322 149 149 50 50 137 158 295 $1,980 $296 $0 $2,276 $158 $2,434 Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates - 50 - APPENDIX B SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AMENDMENT SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTS ON CITY OF TUSTIN: EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN AMENDMENT AREA ** Recurring Revenues ** Property tax (1984-85,frozen) Transfer tax Sales tax Business license tax Utility franchises Other revenues Total Revenues Existing Existing Existing Industrial Distribution Commercial $29,028 $8,325 $1,565 966 317 29 45,080 38,080 91,000 2,244 1,896 2,867 2,228 1,882 1,364 6,159 3,259 2,319 $85,706 $53,760 $99,144 ** Recurring Costs ** Police $14,699 $12,416 $18,426 Public works * 0 0 0 Citywide overhead 1,463 1,235 1,833 Fire protection 10,272 3,081 481 Total Costs $26,434 $16,733 $20,740 Revenue/Cost Balance $59,272 $37,027 $78,403 Note: For purposes of this report, public works maintenance costs for both new and existing facilities have been presented within the analysis of costs attributable to new development. Therefore, the overall revenue cost balance projected for each alternative includes public works costs for existing facilities, even though these costs are not specifically identified in this table. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates - 52 - - 53 - APPENDIX "B" EIR 85 - I · SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AMENDMENT CITY OF TU.ST1N REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPENDIX "B" EIR 85 - I SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT' AMENDMENT CITY OF TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DRAFT EIR 85-1 (FURNISHED UNDER SEPAP~ATE COVER) 6-17-85 DRAFT EIR 85-1 (FURNISHED UNDER SEPARATE COVER) 6-17-85 VOLU~E TI RESPONSE TO COI~4ENTS SOUTH/CENTRAL REOEYELOPMENT PRO~ECT AHENDMENT EIR SCH ~84121203 Prepared by: PHILLIPS BRANOT REOOICK, INC. 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 Contact Person: Sid Lindmark, AICP Telephone Number: (714) 261-8820 Prepared for: THE CITY OF TUSTIN 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Contact Person: Edward M. Knight Telephone Number: (714) 544-8890 June 1985 VOLUME II RESPONSE TO COMMENTS SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AMENDMENT EIR SCH J84121203 Prepared by: PHILLIPS ~IDT REDDICX, INC. 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 Contact Person: Sid Lindmark, AICP Telephone Number: (714) 261-8820 Prepared for: ll~E CIl~ OF llJSTIN 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Contact Person: Edward M. Knight Telephone Number: (714) 544-8890 June 1985 INTROOUCTION Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a written response be prepared for each comment received on a Draft EIR.' A number of comments were received during the draft review period for the South/Central Redevelopment Project Amendment EIR and, in conformance with state and city procedures, a response to each comment has been prepared. The following Responses to Comments EIR Addendum is comprised of three components including: - A list of agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; - Copies of the original written transmittals from commenting agencies; and - Responses which are keyed to each specific comment on~ the original transmittals. LIST OF CO~rI~i AGENCIES A. State Agencies Office of Planning and Research Department of Transportation Public Utilities Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Aha Region B. County Agencies Environmental Management Agency - Planning Environmental Management Agency - Transportation Planning Division C. Other Jurisdictions City of Santa Aha INTRODUCTION Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a written response be prepared for each comment received on a Draft EIR. A number of comments were received during the draft review period for the South/Central Redevelopment Project Amendment EIR and, in conformance with state and city procedures, a response to each comment has been prepared. The following Responses to Comments EIR Addendum is comprised of three components including: A list of agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; Copies of the original written transmittals from commenting agencies; and Responses which are keyed to each specific comment on the original transmittals. LIST OF CO)I~E)rrING AGENCIES A. State Agencies Office of Planning and Research Department of Transportation Public Utilities Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Aha Region County Agencies Environmental Management Agency - Planning Environmental Management Agency - Transportation Planning Division C. Other Jurisdictions City of Santa Aha OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH / June 7, 1985 Edward Knight City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA. 92680 Subject: Amendment to South Central RDA SCH # 84121203 De&r Mr. Knight ?ne State Clearinghouse submitted the above r~med draft Environmental L~act P. egort (EiR) to selected state agencies for review. 5he review perlcd is ' closed and the co~z~3nts of the Lndlvldual agency(les) is(are) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearlng~house has ~hecked which agencies have cc~=~nted. ~ease review the Notice of Completion to er~ure that your comment p~ckage Is ccmplete. If the packag· is not in order, please not~fy the State Clearinghouse i~m~ediately. Your eight dl~t State Clearin~use number should be used so that we may ~-eply Dmnmptly. Please note e~hat recent legislation requJ, res that a ~esponsible a&ency or other public agency shall only m-ke substantive comments on a project which are within th~ area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities which that agency must carry out or ~pprove. (AB 2583, Ch. 15la, S~ts. 198~. ) ~nese ccmm,.ents are forwarded for your use tn preparing your final EL-R. you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience. Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/~5-0613 if you have ~.ny questions regard~ the environmental re~_ew process. Sincerely, John B. Chanian Chief Deputy DiDec°cor Office of Planning and Research cc: Resources AEency Enclosures 1-1 STATE OF CAL~FORNIA--OFFJC~ OF THE GOYERNOR RECEIVED OFFICE. OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH I~)0 TENTH STREET SACRA~,£NTO, CA 9~814 June 7, 1985 Edward Knight City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA. 92680 Subject: Amendment to South Central RDA SCH # 84121203 Deer Mr. Knight The State Clearinghouse submitted the above n~-~d draft Environmental L.?~act Repor~ (ELM) bo selected state agencies for ~eview. ~he ~ev~.ew perlcd Ls closed and the co~ents of the individual agency(les) is(are) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked which agencies have c~e~sented. ~ease review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. I.f the package is not in order, please notify the State Clear~use ia~ediately. Your eight di~t State Clearinghouse n,~m~er should be used so that 'we may reply promptly. Please note ~t recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments on a project which are within the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities which that agency m~t carry out or agprove. (AB 2583, Ch. 151~, Stats. 198~. ) 1-1 These com~.ents are forwarded for your use in preparing your final ELM. you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the co~menting agency at your earliest convenience. Please contact Glern Stober at 916/445-0613 if you ~have ~.uy Questions ~egar~nE the environmental ~e~_ew process. Sincerely, uohn B. Chanlan Chief Deputy Director Office of Planning mud Research cc: Resources Agency ~nclosu~es L Ju/3e 4, 1985 2 ul lic IHliti s ornrnission ~ '~" '~' 9884 T. $. JOE · .~o. 183-30/EIR Mr. Mark Boehme Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tent~ Street - Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Boehme: This refers to t_he City of Tustin's draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sout-h/Cent_ral Redevelopment project, SCH #84121203. Based on a review and analysis of t_he material in the report, the staff concurs with the report's recommended mitigation that the extension of Newport Avenue be with a separation of grades at the proposed intersection with t_he railroad tracks. As stated in our letter of September 2, 1983 to Mr. Dan Conaty in the Focused E.I.R. for the Newport Avenue Extension, SCH %82070913, the staff believes that the separation of grades will mitigate traffic impacts affecting both the public and =he railroad. A copy of this letter is a=tached for your information. Any crossing of the railroad ~rack by ~he extension of Newport Avunue or any other rcadway will cause =he Commission to become a 'Responsible Agency'. As such, any application seeking authority to cross the tracks of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company by means other than separation of grade will probably be opposed by the staff. The opposition would be based on the con- cerns expressed in our letter of September 2, 1983. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. very truly yours, WILLIAM R. SCHULTE, Supervisor Transportation Projects Section Railroad Operations and Safety Branch Transportation Division cc: Edward M. Knight City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way T~stin, CA 92680 OFFIC~ OF PLANNING & P.E$~ARCH 2-1 June 4, 1985 2 · 'FAT= 0 ~ C:AI..II= 0 R Nlra · ,~o 183-30/EIR Mr. Mark Boehme Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street - Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Mr. Boehme: This refers to ~"~e City of Tustin's draft Environmental Impact Report for the South/Central Redevelopment project, SCH %84121203. Based on a review and analysis of t_he material in the report, the staff concurs with the report's recommended mitigation that the extension of Newport Avenue be with a separation of grades at the proposed intersection with the railroad tracks. As stated in our letter of September 2, 1983 to Mr. Dan Conaty in the Focused E.I.R. for the Newport Avenue Extension, SCH %82070913, the staff believes that the separation of grades will mitigate traffic impacts affecting both the public and t. he railroad. A copy of this letter is attached for your information. A~y crossing of the railroad t-rack by the extension of Newport Avenue or any other roadway will cause t_he Commission to become a 'Responsible' Agency'. As such, any application seeking authority to cross the tracks of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company by means other than separation of grade will probably be opposed by the staff. The opposition would be based on the con- cerns expressed in our letter of September 2, 1983. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Very truly yours, WILLIAM R. SCHULTE, Supervisor Transportation Projects Section Railroad Operations and Safety Branch Transportation Division cc: Edward M. Knight City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 JUN 0 O/:FIC~ OF PLANNING 8,, R~SEARCH 2-1 September 2, 1983 .,~.. 183-30/E!R Dan Conaty Office of P~anning and Research 1400 Tenth Street - Room 121 Sacrmx~ento, CA 95814 D~ar .~lr. Conaty: This is in regard to the City of Tustin's Draft Focused Environ- mental I. m9ac~ Report for ~he Newport Avenue Extension, SCH ~82070913. In reviewing this document, we find that it leaves unanswered far more questions concerning the effectiveness of a Newpor~ Avenue crossing of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company's t_racks than it answers. Not only is there considerable train switching activity in t_he vicinity of ~he proposed Newport Avenue Extension but consideration should be given to the impact which such a crossing woulS"hape on the use of the railroad's passing t. rack for passes and meets. Following is a more specific statement of our concerns over the deficiencies which we perceive in the 3-1 focused ELR. On page 11 of the EIR under ~_xisting Conditions - Railroad Operations, a description 'of ~he trackage and train activities in the vicinity of the proposed ~ewport Avenue Extension is given. Any meaningful i.~ormauion which would permit an analysis of the imp. act of the extension on train activities and the impact of t_rain activities on the effectiveness of a railroad-highway grade crossing is, however, sadly lacking. For example, if switching operations at the site of the proposed Newport Avenue crossing would block the roadway for significant periods of time, the resultant traffic delays would render the ~roject ineffective for its intended use. Further, if passes and meets of trains occur in this vicinity, as we would assume, the crossing would be blocked for extended periods of time or the railroad would have to revise its operations to avoid being in violation of the Commission's General Order No. 135 which governs the occupancy of public 9fade crossings by railroads. Septem~e-r 2, 1983 Dan Conaty Cuffice of PLanning and Reseazch 1400 Tenth Street - Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 D~ar .~lr. Conaty: This is in regard to t. he City of Tustin's Draft Focused'Environ- mental Impact Report for the Newport Avenue Extension, $CH %82070913. In reviewing this document, we find that it leaves unanswered far more questions concerning the effectiveness of a Newport Avenue crossing of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company's t_racks than it answers. Not only is there considerable train switching activity in t_he vicinity of the proposed NewTort Avenue ~xtension but consideration should be given to t_h.e impact which such a crossing wou!a.-haPe on the use of the railroad's passing track for passes and meets. Following is a more specific statement of our concerns over the deficiencies which we perceive in the focused ELR. On page !1 of the EIR under Existing Conditions - Railroad Operations a description 'of the trackage and train activities in the vicinity of the proposed }~ewport Avenue Extension is given. Any meaningful i.~ormation which would perm!= an analysis of the im9act of the extension on t_rain activities and the Lmpact of t-rain activities on the effectiveness of a railroad-highway grade crossing is, however, sadly lacking. Sot example, if switching operations at the site of the proposed Newpcr~ Avenue crossing would block the roadway for significant periods of time, the resultant traffic delays would render the project ineffective for its intended use. Further, if passes and meets of t-rains occur in this vicinity, as we would assuma, either the crossing would be blocked for extended periods of time or the railroad would have to revise i=s operations to avoid being in violation of the Commission's General Order No. 135 which governs the occupancy of public grade crossings by railroads. Dan Conaty -2- September 2, 1983 On page 32 of the EIR, it is indicated that ~he proposed Newport Avenue Extension would have a generally beneficial effect on a variety of community services. This may or.may not be correct subject to further analysis. The benefits to community services are entirely dependent on the reliability of =he route. If the previously noted switching activities and train passes and meets were to blOCk the proposed crossing for inordinate periods of time, t. he proposed Newport Aven~e Extension would not be a re- liable route for emergency vehicles and emergency vehicles would, of necessity, continue to use the more reliable Red Hill Avenue crossing. Due to the lack of a proper in-depth analysis, it is our opinion that the EIR has reached erroneous conclusions regarding solution to what we recognize as being very real traffic circulation problems. The ideal solution to the problem would be ~ Newport Avenue overcrossing and reconstruction of Edinger Avenue on/off- ramps to Route 55. If the California Department of Transportation had correctly designed access to Route 55, we would not now be faced with t_he Newport Avenue Extension problem and =he very high costs for such a resolution of the problem. The more practical s~iution, and the only one which t_he commission staff believes would '~eet t_he requirements for public convenience, necessity and safety, is a modification of %he project alternative. if there is to be any realistic solution to ~he traffic circulation problem, it must entail completion of a Red Hill Avenue grade separation after which it would appear practical to consider cons- truction of the Newport Avenue Extension and attendant grade crossing. In justification of this position and subject to further review by the City and the railroad, we offer the following comments: An the present tLme, railroad operations are tailored to =he exis- tence of ~he Red Hill Avenue grade crossing and t3%e lack of a Newport Avenue grade crossing. Passes, meets and switching acti- vities may all now be freely performed northerly of Red Hill Avenue without interference with or by vehicular traffic acitity. As previously indicated, a Newp. ort Avenue grade crossing ~ould require a substantial change in the mode of railroad operations. And without a Red Hill Avenue grade separation, it would ~pear ~hat the railroad would be severely penalized by the reduction in effective length of passing track and the impact of vehicular traffic on its switching activities. Assuming that a Red ~ill Avenue grade separation is constructed, we believe i= would be possible for the railroad to shift many of its operations southeasterly, so as not to interfere undu~ with a Newport Avenue grade crossing. W~ile the necessary track Dan Conaty -2- September 2, 1983 On page 32 of the EIR, it is indicated that ~he proposed NewTort Avenue Extension would have a generally beneficial effect on a variety of community services. This may or.may not be correct subject to further analysis. The benefits to c~unity services are entirely dependent on the reliability of the route. If the previously noted switching activities and train passes and meets were to blOCk the proposed crossing for inordinate periods of time, the proposed Newport Aven~e Extension would not be a re- liable route for emergency vehicles and emergency vehicles would, of necessity, continue to use the more reliable Red Hill Avenue crossing. Due to the lack of a proper in-depth analysis, it is our opinion that t_he EIR has reached erroneous conclusions regarding solution to what we recognize as being very real traffic circulation problems. The ideal solution to the problem would be ~ Newport Avenue overcrossing and reconstruction of Edinger Avenue on/off- ramps to Route 55. If the California Department of Transportation had correctly designed access to Route 55, we would not now be faced with the Newport Avenue Extension problem and the very high costs for such a resolution of the problem. The more practical s~iuZion, and the only one which ~he Commission staff believes would '~eet t_he requirements for public convenience, necessity and safety, is a modification of =he project alternative. tf there is to be any realistic solution to t_he traffic circulation problem, it must entail completion of a Red Hill Avenue grade separation after which it would appear practical to consider cons- t.ruction of t~.e Newport Avenue Extension and attendant grade crossing. In justification of this position and subject to further review by the City and the railroad, we offer the following comments: A= the present tL=e, railroad operations are tailored to the exis- tence of the Red Hill Avenue grade crossing and the lack of a Newport Avenue grade crossing. Passes, meets and switching acti- vities may all now be freely performed northerly of Red Hill Avenue without interference with or by vehicular traffic acitity. As previously indicated, a Newport Avenue grade crcssing would require a substantial change in the mode of railroad operations. And without a Red Rill Avenue grade separation, it would ~pear that the railroad would be severely penalized by the reduction in effective length of passing track and the impact of vehicular traffic on its switching activities. Assuming that a Red ~i!l Avenue grade separation is constructed, we believe it would be possible for the railroad to shift many of its operations southeasterly so as not to interfere undu~ with a Newport Avenue grade crossing. W%ile the necessary track Dan Conat¥ -3- 2,.1983 modifications would come at some cost to t. he City, we would hope =ha= .t. he costs would be within reason considering the magnitude of t_he iota1 project and t-he benefits provided in improved traffic circulation to =he City of Tustin. Thank YOu.for =he opportunity to comment on =he EIR and to apprise all interested parties with =he views and concerns which =he staff of t. he California Public Utilities Commission has with regard to =his project. Very truly yours, ROBERT W. STICH, P. E. Supervisor - Traffic Engineering Transportation Division cc: Bob Leydendecker Public Works Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial way Tustin, CA 92680 Le!and E. Butler General Attorney Santa Fe Industries, Inc. 114 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Dan Cona=y -3- September 2,.1983 modifications would cc~e at some cos~ to t. he City, we would hope that ~he costs would be within reason considering the maqnitude of t. he iota1 project and the benefits provided in i~proved traffic circulation to the City of Tustin. Thank you.for the opportunity to comment on t. he EIR and to apprise all interested par~ies with the views and concerns which the staff of ~he California Public Utilities Co~ission has with regard to this project. Very truly yours, ROBERT W. ST!CH, P. E. Supervisor - Traffic Engineering Transportation Division cc: Bob Leydendecker Public Works Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92650 Leland E. Butler General Attorney Santa Fe Industries, Inc. 114 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94104 State o~c C~dlfornia Memorandum 4 To From Subject: Dr. Gordon Snow Assistant Secretary for Resources The Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, 13th Floor lson, Environmental Technician California Regional Water Quality Control Board-Santa Ana Region May 28, 1985 (ATSS) FOCUSED DEIR: SOUTH/CENI~AL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AMENDMENT, SCH #~121203 We have reviewed this Focused DEIR for this project. The project proponent should note'that an erosion/siltation control plan must be submitted for appro- val by this office prior to commencing any construction activities. In addition, the project proponent should note that if dewatering is necessary and the discharge of this wastewater to receiving waters is proposed, an NPDES permit (Waste Discharge Requirements) must be obtained from this Board prior to initiating the discharge. It should be noted that processing of an NPDES permit may take as long as 120 days. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact this office. 4-1 Enclosure: State Clearinghouse Form CC: Edward Knight- City of Tustin NAO:ww State of California Memorandum 4 To From Subject: Dote: Dr. Gordon Snow Assistant Secretary for Resources The Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, 13th Floor lson, Environmental Technician California Regional Water Quality Control Board-Santa Aaa Region saos ~.o,~.~ ~v=.u=. su,'r~ zoo. mv~s,oe, c~ ~zsoe (ATSS) 632-4!30 May 28, 1985 FOCUSED DEIR: SOUTH/CENTP~AL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AMENDMENT, SCH #84121203 We have reviewed this Focused DEIR for this project. The project proponent should note'that an erosion/siltation control plan must be submitted for'appro- val by this office prior to cu~encing any construction activities. In addition, the project proponent should note that if dewatering is necessary 4-1 and the discharge of this wastewater to receiving waters is proposed, an NPDES permit (Waste Discharge Requirements) must be obtained from this Board prior to initiating the discharge. It should be noted that processing of an NPDES permit may take as long as ]20 days. j If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact this office. Enclosure: State Clearinghouse Form cc: Edward Knight- City of Tustin NAO:ww  ~___~NTY OF 5 ',.c ~ ~17 3 ~,~RANGE Ju~e 4, [985 MURRAY STORM Ol RE(:TOR, EMA ROSERTG. FISHER ~IRECTOR OF PI. ANNING NCL 4070 Mr. Edward M. Knight Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 SUBJECT: DEIR - Amendment to South/Central RDA Dear Mr. Knight: The County of Orange Environmental M-nagement Agency has reviewed the above referenced document. The proposed amendmen: to the South/Central Redevelopment Project Area is the addition of 138 acres of industrially zoned land in the City of Tusttn. The site is bounded by Red Hill Avenue, Valencia Avenue, the Newport-Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) and Edinger Street. Attached for your consideration are comments from this Agency's Transportation Planning Division. 5-1 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the DEIR. We continue to look forward to working with you on this project. We would appreciate receiving two copies of the FEIlt when they become available. If you have any questions, please contact Sara Anderson at 834-5550. SA:sls Attachments Very truly yours, Michael M. Ruane, Ch EMA/ESP, Capital Projects ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING MURRAY STOR~ OI~ECTOR EM~ ROBERT G. FISHER NCL 4070 Mr. Edward M. Knight Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 SUBJECT: DEIR - Amendment to South/Central RDA Dear M~r. Knight: The County of Orange Environmental Mmnagement Agency has reviewed the above referenced document. The proposed amendment to the South/Central Redevelopment Project Area is the addition of 138 acres of industrially zoned land in the City of Tustin. The site is bounded by Red Hill Avenue, Valencia Avenue, the NewTort-Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) and Edinger Street. Attached for your consideration are comments from this Agency's Transportation Planning Division. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the DEIR. We continue to look forward to working with you on this project. ~e would appreciate receiving two copies of the FEIR when they become available. If you have any questions, please contact Sara Anderson at 834-5550. SA:sls Attachments Very truly yours, Michael M. Ruane, Chie EMA/ESP, Capital Projects DATE: June 3, 1985 F. W. Olson, Manager, Enviro~n. ental Analysis Division FBfAM: Jer~y E. Bennett, Manager, Transportation Planning Division Draft EIR South/Central Redevelopment Project ~men~ment City of Tustin We have reviewed the Draft EIR for the South/Central Redevelopment project ~mendment in the City of Tustin. The 138-acre site is located southeast of the Newport-Costa Mesa ($R-55) Freeway and Edinger Street interchange. We present the following comments: Circulation o Exhibit ~4, existing daily traffic map, is unintelligible. Please provide clear'copies so that we can evaluate.- o On page 9, Edinger Avenue is described as a major arterial. This is incorrect. Edinger is a primary arterial highway. Page 10 shows existing ICU values of .84 p.m. and .94 a.m. for peak hours at Red ~ill and Edinger. The recently completed irvine Business Complex EIR on page 41, shows ICU values for the same intersections of .95 for both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Please provide additional data to enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the ICU values in your report. in addition future volumes shown on exhibits 8 and 12 are in many cases, including the preferred alternative, operating at level of service (LOS) F. The County's practice is to design highway links at LOS C with the intent of maintaining LOS D at intersections. We feel it is unacceptal'le to plan circulation facilities that would initially operate at LOS F. This document should address mitigation measures to improve the LOS of affected links and intersections to maintain at least a LOS ot D. Additional information regarding the character of industrial, hotel and co~posite ~and uses proposed is needed in order to evaluate the number of trips that would be generated from this amendment. o Phasin] of circulation improvements with development should be addressed in the ~men~ent. Please evaluate the impact on the circulation system at Edinger and valencia wi~h the prnposed deletion of the northbound off-r~mp at Sycamore when the upgrade of the'l-5/55 interchange takes place. o The mitigation measures ~3 and %4 (page 18) are vague Please clarify. 6-4 1 6-6 I 6-7 10 County Orange 6 DATE: June 3, 1985 F. W. Olson, Manager, Environmental Analysis Division Jerry E. Bennett, Manager, Transportation Planning Division Draft EIR South/Central Redevelopment Project ~men~ment City of Tustin We have reviewed the Draft EIR for the South/Central. Redevelopment project amendment in the City of Tustin. The 138-acre site is located southeast of the Newport-Costa Mesa ($R-55) Freeway and Edinger Street interchange. We present the following comments: Circulation o Exhibit J4, existing daily traffic map, is unintelligible. Please provide clear'copies so that we can evaluate. On page 9, gdinger Avenue is described as a major arterial. This is incorrect. Edinger is a primary arterial highway. Page 10 shows existing ICU values of .84 p.m. and .94 a.m. for peak hours at Red Hill and Edinger. The recently completed irvine Business Complex EIR on page 41, shows ICU values for the same intersections of .95 for both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Please provide additional data to enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the ICU values in your report. in addition future vol".mes shown on exhibits 8 and 12 are in many cases, including the preferred alternative, operating at level of service (LOS) F. The County's practice is to design highway links at LOS C with the intent of maintaining LOS D at intersections. We feel it is unacceptal le to plan circulation facilities that would initially operate at LOS F. This document should address mitigation measures to improve the LOS of affected links and intersections to maintain at least a LOS OLD. 6-3 Additional information regarding the character of industrial, hotel and co~nposite ]and uses proposed is needed in order to evaluate the number of =r~ps that would be generated from this amendment. Phasin~ of circulation improvements with development should be addressed in the ~men~ent. Please evaluate the impact on the circulation system at Edinger and Valencia with ~he pr.~posed delecion of the northbound off-r~p at Sycamore when the upgrade of the'l-5/55 interchange takes place. The mitipat[on measures ~3 and ~4 (page 18) are vague Please clarify. 6-4 6-5 I I 6-6 I L 6- 10 F. W. Olscn Page 2 The County uses a design capacity of 45,000 VP.D for a major, 30,000 VPD for a primary, and 20,000 for a secondary. The design level of service azsumed for this study are 54,000 VPD for a major, 36,000 for a primary and 28,000 VPD for a secondary. These differences between the assumptions used by the City and County need to be doc=mented and discussed'so that the impacts of this project on the circulation system can be evaluated. Air Quality Table 2, page 21, should include State and National air quality standards. Particulates should also be expressed as the ?i{umber of Days State/Federal Standards are Exceeded." The EIR should include an estimate of the construction-related vehicle and dust emissions. The EIR should include a table showing gas and electricity usage, their emission factors and resulting emissions generated by the project. The URBEMIS program uses the outdated ~4FAC6C vehicle emission factors. It should be adjusted to use ~--MFAC6D vehicle emission factors. The assumed trip lengths used in the program should be documented or changed to Orange County's typical 10 miles per trip. I I ! 6-11 6-12 Since the project, as stated on page 26, is inconsistent with the growth forecast assumed in the AQ~IP, one of the following options i~ necessary: a. The project could be modified to become consistent; b. A general plan amendment could be prepared, subject to the requirements of state planning laws; 6-13 An EIR could be certified for an inconsisten: project if · Finding is so made and a Statement of Ovecriding Consideration is included. This option is not available if a Negative Declaration is used. Bikeways The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways shows a bikeway alignment along Red I Hill Avenue in the project area. A class II bikeway is re:o~,T~ended. The EIR 8-14 should inc!u~e a discussion about this bikeway in relation to the propc~d p~oject. J H~/HR/KK:jnD:403-79 6/3/85 tl F. W. Olscn Page 2 The County uses a design capacity of 45,000 V?D for a major, 30,000 VPD for a primary, and 20,000 for a secondary. The design level of service assumed for this study are 54,000 VPD for a major, 36,000 for a primary and 28,000 V~D for a secondary. These differences between the assumptions used by the City and County need to be documented and discussed so that the impacts of this project on the circulation system can be evaluated. Air Quality Table 2, page 21, should include State and National air quality standards. Particulates should also be ex?ressed as the "Number of Days State/Federal Standards are Exceeded." The EIR should include an estimate of the construction-related vehicle and dust emissions. The EIR should include a table showing gas and electricity usage, their emission factors and resulting emissions generated by the project. The UI~BEMIS program uses the outdated ~AC6C vehicle emission factors. It shoul~ be adjusted to use ~MFAC6D vehicle emission factors. The assumed trip lengths used in the program should be documented or changed to Orange County's typical 10 miles per trip. 6-10 6-11 I 6-12 Since the project, as stated on page 26, is inconsistent with the growth forecast assumed in the AQ~%~P, one of the following options i~ necessary: a. The project could be modified to become consistent; b. A general plan amendmen% could be prepared, subject to the requirements of state planning laws; 6-13 An EIR could be certified for an inconsistent project if a Finding is so made and a Statement of Overriding Consideration is included. This option is not available if a %~egati'~e Declaration is used. Bikeways The Master ~lan of Countywide Bikeways shows a bikeway alignment along Red Hill Avenue in the project area. A class II bikeway is re=o~J, ended. The EIR 6--14 s!'~ou!d i~c!u.~e a discussion about this bikeway in ~elation to tks propc~d p~oject. J HP/HR/KK:jnD:403-79 6/3/85 11 ~, ~t luxernbou~e~ ()~ ~oun~ June 7, 1985 CITY OF SANTA ANA 20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA · PO. BOX 1988 SANTA A,',~A, CALIFORNIA 92702 7 Roherl C B~,bh C1T~ -~TTORNEY Ech,.ard I. Cooper CLERk OF TH[ COL. NCII l,tnice C. Guy Mr. Edward M. Knight City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Mr. Knight: The City of Santa Ana appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for the City of Tustin South/Central Redevelopment Project Amendment in light of the amendment's substantial impacts on the City of Santa Aha and regional freeway travelers. Please take note of the following concerns and justifications when preparing the final environmental impact report, and consider this letter Santa Ana's official response to the proposed amendment. I As displayed in exhibits 9, 10 and 11 of the draft environ- [ mental impact report, the three circulation alternatives I under consideration for the proposed amendment all detail the closure of the Edinger off-ramp from the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway to north bound traffic. Such a closure is unaccep- 7-1 table to the City of Santa Aha as it would result in impacts upon laL]d uses in Santa Aha, and could represent a safety and circulation inconvenience problem to travelers of the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway. Currently, an automobile sales complex is under construction within Santa Ana across the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway to the west amd on the north side of Edinger Avenue. This automo- bile sales complex will serve customers from the entire Orange County region, many of whom will require access from Edinger Avenue when north bound on the Costa Mesa (55) Free- way. Such a closure on Edinger and diverting traffic to Valencia in Tustin would render the automobile sales complex inconvenient to many patrons. As you will notice, Valencia does not cross the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway. Concurrent with impacts on the automobile sales complex, residents and businesses situated off Edinger Avenue, west of the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway will be inconvenienced. The potential closure of Edinger Avenue off-ramp is a myopic 7-2 12 LOt. R. ~,'~ Lu~umbourgef June 7, 1985 CITY OF SANTA ANA 20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA · PO~ BOX 1988 SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA 92702 7 R~abert C. Bobh CIT'~ ATTORN['Y Ed','.ard J. Cooper CLERK OF TH[ COLX. Ci[ Mr. Edward M. Knight City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Mr. Knight: The City of Santa Ana appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report for the City of Tustin South/Central Redevelopment Project Amendment in light of the amendment's substantial impacts on the City of Santa Ana and regional freeway travelers. Please take note of the following concerns and justifications when preparing the final environmental impact report, and consider this letter Santa Ana's official response to the proposed amendment. As displayed in exhibits 9, 10 and 11 of the draft environ- mental impact report, the three circulation alternatives under consideration for the proposed amendment all detail the closure of the Edinger off-ramp from the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway to north bound traffic. Such a closure is unaccep- table to the City of Santa Aha as it would result in impacts upon land uses in Santa Aha, and could represent a safety and circulation inconvenience problem to travelers of the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway. 7-1 Currently, an automobile sales complex is under construction within Santa Ana across the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway to the west and on the north side of Edinger Avenue. This automo- bile sales complex will serve customers from the entire Orange County region, many of whom will require access from Edinger Avenue when north bound on the Costa Mesa (55) Free- way. Such a closure on Edinger and diverting traffic to Valencia in Tustin would render the automobile sales complex inconvenient to many patrons. As you will notice, Valencia does not cross the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway. Concurrent with impacts on the automobile sales complex, residents and businesses situated off Edinqer Avenue, west of the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway will be inconvenienced. The potential closure of Edinger Avenue off-ramp is a myopic 7-2 12 Mr. Edward M. Knight City of Tustin June 7, 1985 Page Two approach to traffic management from an area-wide environ- mental perspective. Impacts upon surrounding streets and land uses west of the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway resulting from diverted traffic of the Edinger Avenue off-ramp closure would be substantial and unacceptable. The draft environmental impact report details existing land uses in Section 4.4 and these land uses are logistically identified in Exhibit 16. Exhibit 16 displays surrounding land uses to the proposed amended area, and is incorrect. Citation #24, located in Santa Aha, specifically located west of the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway and north of Edinger Avenue is described in the corresponding legend as commercial/- industrial. This area encompassed by Citation ~24 is indeed the site of the automobile sales complex currently under construction. In addition, the text of this land use Section 4.4 does not discuss the automobile sales complex. A develop- ment the scale of an automobile sales complex consisting of 9 dealers must be accounted for in order for environmental analysis to be adequate. Indeed, accounting for the automo- bile sales complex is mandatory in analyzing environmental impacts, particularly traffic and circulation. 7-2 In addition to the impacts mentioned above, the City of Santa Ana is currently negotiating with Santa Fe Land Im- provement Company on development of their property (approxi- mately 150 acres). These projects consisting of up to 2 million square feet, plus the projects already under construc- ?-5 tion or in the final planning phases, all rely on the exist- lng arterial street patterns and the existing Edinger Free- way Exit in particular. The impacts on traffic congestion in this area, should the Edinger exit be relocated, could poten- tially prove disasterous for local and regional circulation. This new development occurring in Santa Aha must be accounted for when evaluating a potential closure of the Edinger off- ramp. Please contact this department for further details concerning development in eastern Santa Ana. In addition, please incorporate the land use projections included in the 7-4 EIR for the South Main Street Redevelopment Project. Edinger Avenue is a major east-west corridur in the County of Orange. Many commuters utilize Edinger as an alternative to the freeways. The off-ramp closure would interfere with existing traffic patterns diverting traffic to other streets and freeways. The present ramp configuration provides a direct connection that should be retained to maintain an efficient traffic operation. 13 Mr. Edward M. Knight City of Tustin June 7, 1985 Page Two approach to traffic management from an area-wide environ- mental perspective. Impacts upon surrounding streets and land uses west of the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway resulting from diverted traffic of the Edinger Avenue off-ramp closure would be substantial and unacceptable. The draft environmental impact report details existing land uses in Section 4.4 and these land uses are logistically identified in Exhibit 16. Exhibit 16 displays surrounding land uses to the proposed amended area, and is incorrect. Citation ~24, located in Santa Aha, specifically located west of the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway and north of Edinger Avenue is described in the corresponding legend as commercial/- industrial. This area encompassed by Citation ~24 is indeed the site of the automobile sales complex currently under construction. In addition, the text of this land use Section 4.4 does not discuss the automobile sales complex. A develop- ment the scale of an automobile sales complex consisting of 9 dealers must be accounted for in order for environmental analysis to be adequate. Indeed, accounting for the automo- bile sales complex is mandatory in analyzing environmental impacts, particularly traffic and circulation. 7-2 In addition to the impacts mentioned above, the City of Santa Ana is currently negotiating with Santa Fe Land Im- provement Company on development of their property (approxi- mately 150 acres). These projects consisting of up to 2 million square feet, plus the projects already under construc- ?-3 tion or in the final planning phases, all rely on the exist- inG arterial street patterns and the existing Edinger Free- way Exit in particular. The impacts on traffic congestion in this area, should the Edinger exit be relocated, could poten- tially prove disasterous for local and regional circulation. This new development occurring in Santa Aha must be accounted for when evaluating a potential closure of the Edinger off- ramp. Please contact this department for further details - concerning development in eastern Santa Ana. In addition, ' ~ please incorporate the land use projections included in the 7-4 EIR for the South Main Street Redevelopment Project. ~ Edinger Avenue is a major east-west corridur in the County of Orange. Many commuters utilize Edinger as an alternative to the freeways. The off-ramp closure would interfere with existing traffic patterns diverting traffic to other streets and freeways. The present ramp configuration provides a direct connection that should be retained to maintain an efficient traffic operation. 13 Mr. Edward ~. Knight City of Tustin June 7, 1985 Page Three It is the City of Santa Ana's position that the proposed ramp configuration is undesirable in that the easterly and westerly ramps are not directly opposite one another. Re- locating the westerly ramps southerly will result in confusion to the motorist. The proposed ramps of Valencia will require travel on Del Amo thus increasing travel time and distance to reach Edinger Avenue, and will not provide direct access to westerly oriented traffic. This is a major impact not thoroughly discussed in the report that needs close scrutiny. Our Transpora%ion Department should be contacted at the earliest opportunity to discuss these impacts. It is also suggested that the representative of both Cities meet with County EMA transporation planners to determine if the propo- sal conforms with the County's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Needless to say, the City would ~trongly oppose any change to the County's Plan that would facilitate the relocation of the Edinger Off-ramp. To reiterate, the City of Santa Ana maintains that this draft environmental impact report does not adequately address potential local and surrounding environmental impacts predic- ted on the fact that the document does not account for the automobile sales complex currently under construction. Additionally, the potential closure of the Edinger off-ramp of the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway to north-bound traffic fails to examine the impact upon land uses west of the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway. The aforementioned comments constitute the City of Santa Ana's response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Tustin South/Central Redevelopment Project Amend- ment. Please notify the City of Santa Aha in reference to all actions associated with the proposed amendment in a timely manner. 7-5 7-6 Cordially, MF/sk 14 Mr. Edward ~. Knight City of Tustin June 7, 1985 Page Three It is the City of Santa Ana's position that the proposed ramp configuration is undesirable in that the easterly and westerly ramps are not directly opposite one another. Re- locating the westerly ramps southerly will result in confusion to the motorist. The proposed ramps of Valencia will require travel on Del A. mo thus increasing travel time and distance to reach Edinger Avenue, and will not provide direct access to westerly oriented traffic. This is a major impact not thoroughly discussed in the report that needs close scrutiny. Our Transporation Department should be contacted at the earliest opportunity to discuss these impacts. It is also suggested that the representative of both Cities meet with County EMA transporation planners to determine if the propo- sal conforms with the County's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Needless to say, the City would strongly oppose any change to the County's Plan that would facilitate the relocation of the Edinger Off-ramp. To reiterate, the City of Santa Ana maintains that this draft environmental impact report does not adequately address potential local and surrounding environmental impacts predic- ted on the fact that the document does not account for the automobile sales complex currently under construction. Additionally, the potential closure of the Edinger off-ramp of the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway to north-bound traffic fails to examine the impact upon land uses west of the Costa Mesa (55) Freeway. The aforementioned comments constitute the-City of Santa Ana's response to the Draft E~vironmental Impact Report for the City of Tustin South/Central Redevelopment Project Amend- ment. Please notify the City of Santa Ana in reference to all actions associated with the proposed amendment in a timely manner. 7-5 7-6 Cordially, MF/sk 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 1-1 The comments address procedural requirements and forward comments from other agencies. No response is needed. 2-1 Concurrence with the recommended mitigation that Newport Avenue extension be with a separation of grades is noted. Other comments are noted. 3-1 The September 1983 letter is an attachment to letter number two and includes responses to the Newport Avenue Extension DEIR (Larry Seeman Associates, 1973). No response is required. 4-1 Requirements for an erosion/siltation control plan construction and potential procurement of a NPDES noted. prior to ~ermit are 5-1 The comments are informational only - no response is required. 6-1 A larger exhibit has been provided for review. 6-2 The correction is noted and incorporated into the DEIR text. 6-3 As noted on page 11, ITAP data used in the South Newport/Edin~er Circulation Analysis was revised to reflect a level of development for the amended area more closely aligned to current development plans. Additional data related to ICU values is included in the City of Tustin Traffic Study: Draft Report: January~ 1985. LOS F is a result of cumulative effects from regional traffic and measures to improve area and regional circulation are described in the South Newport/Edin~er Circulation Analysis. 6-4 The DEIR addresses the amendment to the redevelopment project area. The land use scenarios are conceptual only and not specific proposed projects. No additional data is available until specific projects are proposed. lS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 1-1 The comments address procedural requirements and forward comments from other agencies. No response is needed. 2-1 Concurrence with the recommended mitigation that Newport Avenue extension be with a separation of grades is noted. Other comments are noted. 3-1 The September 1983 letter is an attachment to letter numOer two and includes responses to the Newport Avenue Extension DEIR (Larry Seeman Associates, 1973). No response is required. 4-1 Requirements for an erosion/siltation control plan prior to construction and potential procurement of a NPDES permit are noted. 5-1 The comments are informational only- no response is required. 6-1 A larger exhibit has been provided for review. 6-2 The correction is noted and incorporated into the DEIR text. 6-3 As noted on page 11, ITAP data used in the South Newport/Edin~er Circulation Analysis was revised to reflect a level of development for the amended area more closely aligned to current development plans. Additional data related to ICU values is included in the City of Tustin Traffic Study: Draft Report: January~ 1985. LOS F is a result of cumulative effects from regional traffic and measures to improve area and regional circulation are described in the South Newport/Edinter Circulation Analysis. 6-4 The DEIR addresses the amendment to the redevelopment project area. The land use scenarios are conceptual only and not specific proposed projects. No additional data is available until specific projects are proposed. 15 6-5 No phasing of circulation improvements is available. The land use scenarios are Conceptual only, 6-6 Caltrans is continuing to study these alternatives and no specific plans are available. 6-7 Newport extension is a related project proposed for area circula- tion improvements. General mitigations proposed for this project are repeated in the Amendement EIR. Detailed engineering design studies have not been completed to define the specific future Newport extension proposal. 6-8 The comments on design capacity are noted. The traffic analysis is based on assumptions and analysis included in the City of Tustin Traffic Study and the South Newport/Edin~er Circulation Analysis, both of which are incorporated by reference on pages 2-3. The circulation improvements are related projects and the EIR addresses the amendment of the redevelopment project area. 6-9 Table 2A is hereby added to the EIR. The California Air Resources Board reports exceeded particulate standards by listing the number of observations or samples taken and the number of those samples which exceeded standard concentrations per year. Note that in 1983 at the Anaheim Monitoring Station, only 60 (rather than daily) oOservations were made. Thus it is deemed appropriate to express the exceedence of standards as a percentage of total observations made. 6-10 The EIR states that the EPA estimates that fugitive dust is gener- ated at an average rate of 1.2 tons per acre of exposed soil per month of activity (page 24, paragraph 2). This dust can be redu- ced by about 50% by the application of water. In addition, devel- opment may involve heavy diesel, trucks, earthmoving equipment, air compressors, generators, etc. Exhaust emissions from such equipment and fugutive dust are anticipated to be similar to other development projects. These emissions are not anticipated to have a significant effect on state and federal air quality standards. 16 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-10 No phasing of circulation improvements is available. The land use scenarios are conceptual only. Caltrans is continuing to study these alternatives and no specific plans are available. Newport extension is a related project proposed for area circula- tion improvements. General mitigations proposed for this project are repeated in the Amendement EIR. Detailed engineering design studies have not been completed to define the specific future Newport extension proposal. The comments on design capacity are noted. The traffic analysis is based on assumptions and analysis included in the City of Tustin Traffic Study and the South Newport/Edin~er Circulation Analysis, both of which are incorporated by reference on pages 2-3. The circulation improvements are related projects and the EIR addresses the amendment of the redevelopment project area. Table 2A is hereby added to the EIR. The California Air Resources Board reports exceeded particulate standards by listing the number of observations or samples taken and the number of those samples which exceeded standard concentrations per year. Note that in 1983 at the Anaheim Monitoring Station, only 60 (rather than daily) observations were made. Thus it is deemed appropriate to express the exceedence of standards as a percentage of total observations made. The EIR states that the EPA estimates that fugitive dust is gener- ated at an average rate of 1.2 tons per acre of exposed soil per month of activity (page 24, paragraph 2). This dust can be redu- ced by about 50% by the application of water. In addition, devel- opment may involve heavy diesel, trucks, earthmoving equipment, air compressors, generators, etc. Exhaust emissions from such equipment and fugutive dust are anticipated to be similar to other development projects. These emissions are not anticipated to have a significant effect on state and federal air quality standards. 16 Table 2A AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS O~idantm ! hoer 0.10 i~m Ultret~oiM ~ (2CX) ~/m~) Phou)me~ry (2~ ug/mfl ~ C~miiumi~l~o ~ MO~i~ g.0 ~m N~-Oi~ ~me 8 ~r 10 ~/m~ (10 W~) I~ ~iml~ Inkar~ S~r~ (9 ~} Ste~ S~r~ 1 ~ ~ ~ (NOIR) ~ ~/ma (NOIR) ~ ~/~) (36 ~) Ch~ilumi- Same Il ~i~W C~milumi~s~e 1 Wr ~25 ~ -- (470 uVm;) Sulfur D~e Annual A~ -- ~ ug/m3 24 ~ 0.~ ~ 365 ua/mJ -- (131 ~/m~t U~r~ (0.14 FI~ P~mr~nilinl 3 h~r -- I ~ ~/m~ (0.5 1 ~r 0.5 ~m __ (1310 ~/m=) S~ An~al G~rK ~ ~/m~ 75 ua/ma ~ ug/m~ Mi~ir H~h Volu~ H~h Volume 24 ~ur 1~ ug/m~ Slaking 2~ ug/m~ 1~ ~/ma Slmgling Sulflt~ 24 ~ur 25 ug/m= Tur~ric -- _ _ B~ium Sulfate ~ 30 day 1.5 u~m~ Atomic _ _ -- Qu~ mm~ Sll~rd ~n 1 ~r 0.03 ~m C~um H~- -- _ -- Su~e (42 ug/m~ ~ Vinyl C~i~ 24 ~ 0.010 ~m T~llr ~ (Chinches) (2E ug/m;) ~1~, ;. -- -- __ fl~u~ng r~uce the preveili~ Plni~ to I~s than 10 mil~ w~n the r~alive hum~ i~ I~ than 7~ -- __ _ APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN: Carbon Monozide 8 I~ur 6 I:~m I NDIR -- (7 mg/m3)I -- -- R~u~fl r~ucl the pr.lili~ vi~bti~ _ -- _ PI~i~ fo le~ thin 30 mil~ wh~ t~ rel~ive hum~ is I~ then 7~ 17 Table 2A AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS PMMIIn~ Averl~ii~ Time CMifofnie Slendefda~ N~MM 8~d~ Ox~mlo 1 ~r 0, T0 ~m Uhr~W -- (2~ ug/mfl ~rd Chemilumi~l~e ~n ~i~ 9.0 ~m N~-O~,WI 10 mg/m3 ~me ~ N~-Oi~r~e S~r~ ! ~r 20 ~m (NOIR) ~ mg/m= (NOIR) (~ ~m;) (36 Nitr~ Di~MI Annum AvM~ -- Gas ~ (0.05 Ch~Jlumi- Sam es ~i~W C~ilumin~e 1 ~r 0.25 ~ n~eKe -- StlnMrd (470 SuNur D~e Annual Aw~ ~ -- ~ ug/mJ -- (0.03 24 ~r 0.OS ~m 365 ug/m3 (131 ug/mile U~rl~ol~ (0.14 ~m) Pirar~niline 3 h~r -- -- 1~ ug/m3 (0.5 (1 310 Suso~ Annual G~tic ~ ~/m3 75 ug/mJ ~ ug/mJ Plniculate Mien H~h Volume High Volume 24 ~ur 1~ ug/m~ Sampling 260 ug/m~ I~ ug/m3 Sampling Sulf~ 24 ~ur 2S ug/m3 Turb~i~ric -- B~ium Sulfate A~r~e ~tmn Cale~r -- -- 1.5 ug/mJ ~N IS ~i- At~ic QuI~ me~ Stl~rd A~n ~M~n 1 h~r 0.03 ~m C~mium H~ Su~e (42 ug/m~ ~ STRain Vi~l ChloriM 24 ~ur 0.010 ~m T~lir Panid, to I~ than 10 miles when the rMalive humMi~ is Iw than 7~ -- -- -- APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN: Carbon Monm~i4e $ hour 6 I~m I NOIR -- -- -- (7 Vilibili~y I oOlervltion In luffici~ lmount to R~ucing r~uce the pr~eili~ vi~Mt~ -- -- -- Plnicl~ to lass then 30 milel when t~ rMltive humMiw is I~ then 7~ 17 Due to the several scenarios made possible under the general plan, reliable estimation of construction emissions are not available and no phasing information is available. 6-11 Table 4A is hereby added to the EIR in order to illustrate estima- ted electricity and natural gas consumption under Scenario 3. The emissions factors utilized are those recommended by the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports. The resulting emissions generated under Scenario 3 are listed under "Stationary Sources" in Table 4 of the EIR (Page 25}. These emissions are considered an insignificant impact of the project on air quality. 6-12 The author of the URBEMIS ~1 program, Pat Randall of the Califor- nia Air Reousrces Board, has run comparative analyses using EMFAC6C and EMFAC6D factors. The results indicate a difference of less than 3%. In fact, the projected emissions using EMFAC6C factors were slightly greater than using EMFAC6D. Thus the exist- ing factors provide a more conservative analysis. The assumed trip lengths inherent to the URBEMIS #1 model, are averages for projects within the area of the Southern California Association of Governments, and are as follows: (1) Home-Other : 5.18 (2) Home-Work = 8.79 (3) Home-Shop = 3.23 (4) Work - 8.11 (5) Non-Work = 5.45 6-13 Page 26, paragraph 3 of the EIR states that buildout of Scenario 3 will generate approximately 34,000 trips per day more than build- out of the city general plan. However, Scenario 1 reflects a pro- jection of previous development trends - not the maximum intensifi- cation permitted under the General Plan. As stated in paragraph one, page 39, Scenario 3 is consistent with current zoning and the General Plan. As analyzed in the South Newport/Edin~er Circula- tion Analysis, "the resulting trip generation (73,000 vpd for the Santa Fe/Edinger Area) represents a level of development that 18 6-11 6-12 6-13 Due to the several scenarios made possible under the general plan, reliable estimation of construction emissions are not available and no phasing information is available. Table 4A is hereby added to the EIR in order to illustrate estima- ted electricity and natural gas consumption under Scenario 3. The emissions factors utilized are those recommended by the SCAQMD Air quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports. The resulting emissions generated under Scenario 3 are listed under "Stationary Sources" in Table 4 of the EIR (Page 25). These emissions are considered an insignificant impact of the project on air quality. The author of the URBEMIS #1 program, Pat Randall of the Califor- nia Air Reousrces Board, has run comparative analyses using EMFAC6C and EMFAC6D factors. The results indicate a difference of less than 3%. In fact, the projected emissions using EMFAC6C factors were slightly greater than using EMFAC6D. Thus the exist- ing factors provide a more conservative analysis. The assumed trip lengths inherent to the URBEMIS #1 model, are averages for projects within the area of the Southern California Association of Governments, and are as follows: (1) Home-Other = 5.18 (2) Home-Work ~ 8.79 (3) Home-Shop = 3.23 (4) Work : 8.11 (5) Non-Work : 5.45 Page 26, paragraph 3 of the EIR states that buildout of Scenario 3 will generate approximately 34,000 trips per day more than build- out of the city general plan. However, Scenario 1 reflects a pro- jection of previous development trends - not the maximum intensifi- cation permitted under the General Plan. As stated in paragraph one, page 39, Scenario 3 is consistent with current zoning and the General Plan. As analyzed in the South Newport/Edin~er Circula- tion Analysis, "the resulting trip generation (73,000 vpd for the Santa Fe/Edinger Area) represents a level of development that 18 Table 4A ELECTIRICAL ENERGY USAGE TYPE -RESIDENTIAL OFFICE RETAIL INDUSTRIAL OTHER UNITS SQ F'T ' K~H/'YR/UNIT ...... ~rS~ ............... 1,248~000 12.2 542,000 12.5 105~ 000 · 56.-6 ~ . 304,000 12.6 MWH/YR ........ 0.0 15,225.A 4,206.6 · 40,369.8 -'TOTAL ........ ~-~6~.4 TYPE SIIqGLE FAMIL'¥ .MUL. TIFAMILY(>4) OFFICE RE]'AIL --INDUSTRIAL OTHER NAI'URAL. GAS L]ONSL.IMR'F~ON UNITS SQ FT CF/MO/UNIT. TOTAL MCF/YR 3, ~65 0.0 3~ 918 O. 0 1 ~,248,000 2. (ir 30.0 542~ 000 2.9 1 i. 9 1,105,000 5.5 ~ ...... 45.7 504~ 000 4.8 17.5 'TOTAL 105.0 Source:SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook ~or EIR=-, Dec. t983;* ~rom 1980 Handbook. 19 Table 4A ELECTFiflCAL ENERGY USAGE TYPE RETAIL ~NDUSTRIAL O~HER UNITS O SQ FT ' KI~H/YR/UNIT MWH/YR 1 , 248 ~ 000 542,000 1, 105 ~ 000 .504 ~ 000 ~rS~ ................. 0.0 12.2 15,225.6 12.~ 4,206.6 56.6 12.6 'TOTAL ........ 6~r65~,4- "tYPE SII~GLE FAMILY MUL. TIFAMILY(>4) OFFICE ' REI'AIL --INDUSTRIAL- OTHER I'4At"U~AL GAS CONSUMPTION UNITS SO FT CF'/M0/UNIT TOTAL. MCF/YR 3,665 0.0 .~, 918 O. 0 '~. 000 -'~. c.~ ~0.0 1~48~ 542~ 000 2.9 1 i. 9 1 (.).~, ~ 000 3.5 * ..... 43.7 304,000 4.8 .LT. 5 'TOTAL 103.0 Source:SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook +or EIR=_, Oec.1985;* +rom 1980 Handbook. 19 6-1¢ 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 would be allowable under the General Plan and is similar in magni- tude to that being considered for the Specific Plan." (emphasis added) Thus, although Scenario 3 will generate more traffic than current development trends (Scenario 1), Scenario 3 can be con- sidered consistent with the General Plan, and by extension, with the AQMP. The MPCB designates an "undetermined" trail (No. 53) along Red Hill Avenue (August 1985). Since existing and approved projects (Tustin Center) border Red Hill Avenue, opportunities for future bike trail planning will be addressed in the specific plan. The Community Development Department also provided a direct response to the June 7 letter from the city of Santa Aha, which is attached. Opposition to the closing of the Edinger north-bound off ramp is noted. Opposition to the closing of the £dinger off ramp is noted. Dis- cussion of the auto center is included in Section 9.2 and portions of the Santa Aha Properties Specific Development Plan are included in Appendix G. Appendix G includes portions of the specific plan and future volume-to-capacity ratios. See responses 7-1 and 7-2. The following material is added to Section 9.2. A portion of the area south of McFadden Avenue and west of the SR-55 is also loca- ted in the South Main Street Redevelopment Project in the city of Santa Aha. The proposed project included 600 square feet of addi- tional retail/service use, and 9,¢00 square feet of additional man- ufacturing uses. The proposed land uses and land uses from the DEIR are included in Appendix G. Completed in March 1982, the DEIR proposed freeway ramp construction at the Newport Freeway at Main and Sunflower. A direct response to the June 7 letter is attached. The Valencia ramps is a future related project and Caltrans would be the lead agency for any subsequent environmental documentation. Opposition to relocation of the Edinger off-ramp is noted. 2O 6-14 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 would be allowable under the General Plan and is similar in magni- tude to that being considered for the Specific Plan." (emphasis added) Thus, although Scenario 3 will generate more traffic than current development trends (Scenario 1), Scenario 3 can be con- sidered consistent with the General Plan, and by extension, with the AQMP. The MPCB designates an "undetermined" trail (No. 53) along Red Hill Avenue (August 1985). Since existing and approved projects (Tustin Center) border Red Hill Avenue, opportunities for future bike trail planning will be addressed in the specific plan. The Con~nunity Development Department also provided a direct response to the June 7 letter from the city of Santa Aha, which is attached. Opposition to the closing of the Edinger north-bound off ramp is noted. Opposition to the closing of the Edinger off ramp is noted. Dis- cussion of the auto center is included in Section 9.2 and portions of the Santa Aha Properties Specific Development Plan are included in Appendix G. Appendix G includes portions of the specific plan and future volume-to-capacity ratios. See responses 7-1 and 7-2. The following material is added to Section 9.2. A portion of the area south of McFadden Avenue and west of the SR-55 is also loca- ted in the South Main Street Redevelopment Project in the city of Santa Aha. The proposed project included 600 square feet of addi- tional retail/service use, and 9,400 square feet of additional man- ufacturing uses. The proposed land uses and land uses from the DEIR are included in Appendix G. Completed in March 1982, the DEIR proposed freeway ramp construction at the Newport Freeway at Main and Sunflower. A direct response to the June 7 letter is attached. The Valencia ramps is a future related project and Caltrans would be the lead agency for any subsequent environmental documentation. Opposition to relocation of the Edinger off-ramp is noted. 2O June 14, 1985 Ms. Melanie Fallon Planning Manager 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988 Santa Aha, CA 92702 SUBJE~"F: EIR 85-1 (SOUlll/~Jgill~AL REI)EYELOI~)~ A~IENDI(EIiT) Dear Ms. fallon: Thank you for taking the opportunity to review and comment on Tustin's for an amendment to the South/Centwl Redevelopment Project Area. Your concern and opposition to one of the proposed circulation improvements is noted. However, the intent of EIR 85-1 is to assess the impact of an amendment to the South/Central Redevelopment Project Area. The circulation improvement plan was the result of an independent study conducted to mitigate the ever increasing congestion on northbound Redhill Avenue. Therefore discussions concerning freeway ramp modifications are only potential projects submitted for your early review but obviously subject to specific evaluation at a future date. Should the city of Tustin desire to pursue the relocation of said rmn~s a subsequent £IR would be required for which Caltrans would be the leed agency. Caltr~ns therefore would make the final decision based upon impacts related to both cities. We concur with your comments that the proposed projects in southeasterly Santa Aha could have adverse environmental impacts of critical significance. Communication and cooper=tion between our cities could help avoid disagreements and/or misunderstandings during the development of both our city's industrial areas. Since my city transmits environmental impact reports for your review, we would greatly appreciate the same for projects such as the pending McDonnell Douglas development. 21 300 Centennial Way · Tusti., California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 June 14, 1985 Ms. Melanie Fallon Planning Manager 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 1988 Santa Aha, CA 92702 SUBJECT: £IR 85-1 ($OLTT'H/CE~ REI)E¥£LOPflENT AMENDMENT) Dear Ms. Fallon: Thank you for taking the opportunity to review and comment on Tusttn's EIR 85-1 for an amendment to the South/Central Redevelopment Project Area. Your concern and opposition to one of the proposed circulation improvements is noted. However, the intent of EIR 85-1 is to assess the impact of an amendment to the South/Central RedQvelopment Project Area. The circulation improvement plan was the result of an independent study conducted to mitigate the ever increasing congestion on northbound Redhtll Avenue. Therefore discussions concerning freeway ramp modifications are only potential projects submitted for your early review but obviously subject to specific evaluation at a future date. Should the city of Tustin desire to pursue the relocation of said ramps a subsequent EIR would be required for which Caltrans would be the lead agency. Caltrans therefore would make the final decision based upon impacts related to both cities. We concur with your comments that the proposed projects in southeasterly Santa Aha could have adverse environmental impacts of critical significance. Communication and cooperation between our cities could help avoid disagreements and/or misunderstandings during the development of both our city's industrial areas. Since my city transmits environmental impact reports for your review, we would greatly appreciate the same for projects such as the pending McDonnell Douglas development. 21 300 Czntznnial Way · T~s~., California 92680 · (714) 544.-8890 EIR 85-1 June 14, 1985 If you would immediately forward a copy of your traffic analysis for the Santa Aha Auto Center it will be included in the final [IR 85-1 acknowledging our effort to cooperate with your city. Again we wish to develop a positive relationship, with Sant~ Aha resulting in circulation improvements along the [dinger Avenue/$R-55 freeway corridor. I look forward to meeting with you concerning these subjects. DONALD D. LAMM, Director of Community Development OOL:do:pf cc: Philips, Brandt, Reddlck £IR 22 [IR 85-1 June 14, 1985 If you would immediately forward a copy of your traffic analysis for the Santa Aha Auto Center it will be included in the final EIR 85-1 acknowledging our effort to cooperate with your city. Again we wish to develop a positive relationship with Santa Ana resulting in circulation improvements along the [dinger Avenue/SR-55 freeway corridor. I look forward to meeting with you concerning these subjects. DONALD D. LAMM, Director of Community Development DOL:do:pf Philips, Brandt, Reddlck [IR 85-1 22 7-6 Future related projects and land use scenarios are included in relationshp to the proposed project only. See response 7-2 and the direct response provided by the Department of Community Devel- opment dated June 14, 1985. 23 7-6 ~uture related projects and land use scenarios are included in relationshp to the proposed project only. See response 7-2 and the direct response provided by the Department of Community Devel- opment dated June 14, 1985. 23 June lg, 1985 CITY OF SANTA ANA 20 CrVlC CENTER PLAZA · P.O. BOX 1988 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 ALL-AIVi[RICA CI1Y 1982-83 CITY MANAGER Roberl C. Bubh CITY ATTORNEY Edward j. CI)op¢,r CLERK Of IHI ( OUNCII. Jank~. C. Guy RECEIVED COtti!4Ul~lTY D£VELOPI'dENT Mr. Donald Lamm Director of Community Development City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, Ca. 92680 Dear Mr. Lamm: Attached you will find a copy of the traffic study for the City's Auto Mall project as you have requested. We are waiting on the final traffic study on the pending McDonnell Douglas/Santa Fe Land Development Company proposal at Lyon Street south of Edinger. As soon as this report is completed, I will gladly send a copy to you. I am happy to learn from your letter that the proposed freeway ramp modifications at Edinger and the Costa Mesa Freeway are in the "potential projects" category and will be the subject of further analysis. After a more in-depth review of this proposal, I am sure that the City of Tustin will realize why Santa Ana must object to this modification. We are satisfied with the fact that Tustin's EIR 85-1 does not fully address the impacts of the modification of the freeway ramp since this would be covered by a'subsequent EIR as outlined in your letter. It is sufficient that EIR 85-1 note Santa Ana's opposition to the proposed ramp modification. Other than this one issue, we are comfortable with the balance of EIR 85-1 and wish you well with your redevelopment efforts in the area. As each of our cities develops our industrial/commercial base on either side of the Costa Mesa Freeway, it is clear that we must cooperate to resolve traffic congestion issues common to both cities. Each of our major projects in this area will have traffic studies done to determine proper mitigation measures to handle the anticipated traffic volumes on the existing and proposed arterial streets. Judging from your letter, you appear to be open to discussions in this area. I will be glad to keep you informed on these projects as they are submitted and appreciate the opportunities for review that your office has afforded to us in the past. D,mWl I G~i~el VICE MAYOR June 19, 1985 CITY OF SANTA ANA 20 CIVIC CiENTER PL,~ZA · P.O. BOX 1988 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 ALL-AMIRICA CIIY 1 J3 CliY MANAGL~ Roberl C. 8obh CIT'~ Edward J. CLERK Of [HI ( OL:NCI[ Jank t' ('. Guy JIJ~ 2i .... Mr. Donald Lamm Director of Community Development City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, Ca. 92680 Dear Mr. Lamm: Attached you will find a copy of the traffic study for the City's Auto Mall project as you have requested. We are waiting on the final traffic study on the pending McDonnell Douglas/Santa Fe Land Development Company proposal at Lyon Street south of Edinger. As soon as this report is completed, I will gladly send a copy to you. I am happy to learn from your letter that the proposed freeway ramp modifications at Edinger and the Costa Mesa Freeway are in the "potential projects" category and will be the subject of further analysis. After a more in-depth review of this proposal, I am sure that the City of Tustin will realize why Santa Ana must object to this modification. We are satisfied with the fact that Tustin's EIR 85-1 does not fully address the impacts of the modification of the freeway ramp since this would be covered by a subsequent EIR as outlined in your letter. It is sufficient that EIR 85-1 note Santa Ana's opposition to the proposed ramp modification. Other than this one 'issue, we are comfortable with the balance of EIR 85-1 and wish you well with your redevelopment efforts in the area. As each of our cities develops our industrial/commercial base on either side of the Costa Mesa Freeway, it is clear that we must cooperate to resolve traffic congestion issues common to both cities. Each of our major projects in this area will have traffic studies done to determine proper mitigation measures to handle the anticipated traffic volumes on the existing and proposed arterial streets. Judging from your letter, you appear to be open to discussions in this area. I will be glad to keep you informed on these projects as they are submitted and appreciate the opportunities for review that your office has afforded to us in the past. Mr. Donald Lamm June 19, 1985 Page 2 Let's keep the lines of communication open as you have suggested. I will be calling shortly to set up a lunch or I would be happy to come to your offices if that would be more convenient. Very truly yours, Melanie S. Fallon Planning Manager MSF:cl Enc. Mr. Donald Lamm June 19, 1985 Page 2 Let's keep the lines of communication open as you have suggested. I will be calling shortly to set up a lunch or I would be happy to come to your offices if that would be more convenient. Very truly yours, Melanie S. Fallon Planning Manager MSF:cl Enc. ~$TATE GF CALIFORNIA--OFFiCE OF THE GOVERNOR OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 14C~ T~NTH STREET SACRA,~ENTO, CA 95814 June 17, 1985 916/~5-0613 GEORGE DEUKMF. JIAN, Edward Knight City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA. 92680 Subject: Amendment to South Central RDA, SCH# 84121203 De~ Mr. Knight: The enclosed c~uents mu your draft environmen~ documents were received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period. We are forwarding these cmmmemts to you because they provide information or raise issues which may assist you in project ~eview. To ensure the adequacy of the final document you ~ wish to incorporate these additional comments into the preparation of your final envlror~uemtal documen:. Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/~5-0613 if you have any questions concerning the review process. When you contact the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight digit State Clearinghouse mmmber so that we respond pranptly. Sincerely, $ohn B. Ohanian Chief Deputy Director Enclosure cc: Resources Agency ~ STAT~ C4: CALIFORNIA.--OFFICF. OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKJ~F..JIAN, Gowe~- OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH T4OC T~NTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 June 17, 1985 916/~a5-o613 Edward Knight City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA. 92680 Subject: Amendment to South Central RDA, SCH# 84121203 Des~ Mr. Knight: The enclosed cmmments on your draft environmental documents were received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period. We are forwarding these ccerments to you because they provide information or raise issues which .may assist you in project review. To ensure the adequacy of the fi~-I document you m~y wish to incorporate these additional comments into the preparation of your final environmental document. Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you ~a~ any questions concerning the review process. When you contact the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight digit State Clearinghouse number so t~at we tomy respond pr~np~ly. Sincere iv, Chief Deputy Director Enclosure cc: Resources Agency M e rl o r a:ndu rrr b~..4ne~, Tran~zfion and Hou-~ng Agency To EXECUTIVE OFFICER Office of Planning & Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 W. B. BALLANTINE - District 7 F~m : D~ARTMENTOFTRANSFORTA~ON June 11, 1985 IGR Draft Environmental Impact Report South/Central Redevelo~ ment Project Amendment Project Review Comments. SCH NUMBER 84121203 DEIR Amendment to South/Central Redevelopment Project Caltrans has reviewed the above referenced project and has determined that there will be no significant impacts on the Caltrans Project to reconstruct the Route 5/55 Interchange. Any new interchange plans will need to meet CALTRANS and FHWA design standards an~ will require a subsequent CEQA and N-EPA environmental document. For additional information, please call Doug Stroup, Associate Environmental Planner, at (213) 620-2363. W. B. BALLANTI~ief Environmental Planning Branch Transportation District 7 Clearinghouse Coordinator For information, contact A1 Fisher (ATSS) 640-3935 or (213) 620-3935 Attachment ..S~ote M California Bus~n~s, TransportcK:,;o.-~ and Housing Agency Me-rnorandum To EXECUTIVE OFFICER Office of Planning & Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 W. B. BALLANTINE - District 7 ~Om : ~A~TME~TOF ~ANSINDRTA~ON file bdo.: June 11, 1985 IGR Draft Environmental Impact Report South/Central Redevelo[ ment Project Amendment ~bject,: Project Review Camments. $C~ NUMBER 84121203 DEIR Amendment to South/Central Redevelopment Pro~ect Caltrans has reviewed the above referenced project and has determined that there will be no significant impacts on the Caltrans Project to reconstruct the Route 5/55 Interchange. Any new interchange plans will need to meet CALTRANS and FHWA design standards and will require a subsequent CEQA an~ NEPA environmental document. For additional information, please call Doug Stroup, Associate Environmental Planner, at (213) 620-2363. W. B. BALLANT/1T~ief Environmental Planning Branch Transportation District 7 Clearinghouse Coordinator For information, contact A1 Fisher (ATSS) 640-3935 o= (213) 620-3935 Attachment DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SANTA ANA SOUTH MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT March 16, lg82 City of Santa Aha Santa Aha Co~xnunity Redevelopment Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Aha, CA 92701 Consultants to the City and the Comunity Redevelopment Agency: The Arroyo Group Planners, Architects and Associated Disciplines 40 East Colorado Boulevard Pasadena, CA 91105 24 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SANTA ANA SOUTH MAIN STREET REDEV£LOPMENT PROJECT March 16, 1982 City of Santa Ana Santa Aha Community Redevelopment Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Aha, CA 92701 Consultants to the City and the Co.unity Redevelopment Agency: The Arroyo Group Planners, Architects and Associated Disciplines 40 East Colorado Boulevard Pasadena, CA 91105 24 r ;u Fa4del Awe. Main Street Redevelopment Project Figure 2. Proposed Land Use St. ~IRST I* ~c Fadde~ A~'e. Sou~h Main Street Redevelopment Project Figure 2. Proposed Land Use 25 TABLE 1 PROPOSED LAND USES FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No new Infill Development Development Units Units Change 90 80 -10 80 80 - 1,400 1,600 +200 15,000 21,000 +6,000 428 lO0 -328 Residential - Low Dens (du) Residential-Med/Hi Dens(du) Retail/Service {000 sq Manufacturing (000 sq ft} Vacant (acres) Alternative 3 Proposed Project Units ~hange 80 -10 80 - 2,000 +600 24,400 +g,400 -428 Project Objectives Any of the private developments projected may change in intensity, building layout and provision of parking on- or off-site. Developer, agency, and City flexibility needs to be maintained to insure that each site can be developed in the best manner available to all parties at the time development takes place. The project is intended to meet the following objectives: Convert blighted commercial uses into higher and better residential, office, and community shopping center use. Provide housing to meet housing demand and provide relocation housing for those residents displaced by this project. Generate new employment opportunities by promoting new private investment and con~nercial rehabilition in the project area. o Improve traffic flow and reduce traffic congestion in the project area. o Provide off-street parking. o Provide improvements to urban infrastructure required to reach the above objectives. Minimize potential adverse effects of relocation of residents and businesses through gradual implementation and provision of relocation benefits. o Improve market potential through creation of a uniform con~nercial character along South Main Street. 26 TABLE 1 PROPOSED LAND USES FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 Residential - Low Dens (du) Residential-Med/Hi Oens(du) Retail/Service (000 sq Manufacturing {000 sq ft) Vacant (acres) NO new Development Units gO 1,¢00 15,000 428 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Infill Proposed Development P~oJect mu'hits Change Units Change 80 -10 80 -10 80 80 - 1,600 +200 2,000 +600 21,000 +6,000 24,400 +9,400 100 '328 - -428 Project Objectives Any of the private developments projected may change in intensity, building layout and provision of parking on- or off-site. Developer, agency, and City flexibility needs to be maintained to insure that each site can be developed in the best manner available to all parties at the time development takes place. The project is intended to meet the following objectives: Convert blighted comnercial uses into higher and better residential, office, and comnunity shopping center use. Provide housing to meet housing demand and provide relocation housing for those residents displaced by t~is project. Generate new emplo~qnent opportunities by promoting new private investment and commercial rehabilition in the project area. o Improve traffic flow and reduce traffic congestion in the project area. o Provide off-street parking. o Provide improve~nents to urban infrastructure required to reach the above objectives. Minimize potential adverse effects of relocation of residents and businesses through gradual implementation and provision of relocation benefits. o Improve market potential through creation of a uniform commercial character along South Main Street. 26 APPENDIX "'C" P'LA N & AME NDME NT SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AMENDMENT CFI'Y OF TUSTiN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY -! APPENDIX "C" SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN AND AMENDMENT August 1, 1983 July 1, 1985 Adopted ]. August ~.983 I'HE P~IBEYF. IJBPN~T P~N FOR T~ Table of C~n'Can~.s [NTRflflUCTION O~ffc~mfss~toflel Usls ~fl~s~al Pu~l tc P~ltc, S~t-P~11c A [ns~t~ton~l PUB11c S~, A11 eys, 0~n But Idt~s ~lmt~tons ~ut't dlng Type ~u~ld~n~ $ull dtng ~tg~ N~ of Buildings ~er~l C~.~ls, Mml~tons, Res~c~t~ ~ ~ns~ o~ ' ~s~ln~ No~foml~ L~g~, Alt i Si ~s ~o~ 1 ~ml n~t on Resu~dtvtston ~esl~ fo~ Building Af~l e Houstn~ All~a~tons of T~ ~ev~ ~r ~uslng ~p~lo~ ~ Affo~le P~ of Ag~ tn Pmvtdtng Affa~le He.trig Re~I ~C Housing Allocation of Affo~le ~using Uni~ ~e~ncion of Affor~il Re~lacwnC ~ousing Plan Gener~l P~lctpaclon by ~erl & Tenan~ O~o~nttles ~r ~ners i Ten~ Par~ctpaclon Ag~n~ Cooperation wi~ Public BoOtes ~j~t A~a Comtt~ Pm~e~ ~qui sitto. ~isition of Renl ~quisitto. of ~mmon~l Pmpe~ ~eloca~lon of Assts~ca tn F~ndtng ~e~ ~oca~tons Relocation Pa~n~ Section 200 ~O 301 307 ~I0 317.2 317 .~ 317 .~ 317.6 317.7 317.8 317.9 ~19 ~0.~ ~20.2 320.3 3~ 321 .Z 321,3 321.4 ~2.3 ~4 ~7 ~7.~ ~7.2 ~ ~cje ~ '%. 33~, (e~ ~.), ~e C41t~0~4 Cofls~lofl, a~ a11 appltc~le ~l U~QflS, ~nC]~ Jn S~on XZZ of ~ls plan. A sp~tffc e~ f~us~ ~vtm~fl~l ~e TusCtn 8ra~ Of ~e Orlnge ~7 Ltbr~ for p~ltc ~vt~ ~ ~ts plan tS ~irl~ ~d 4ts~dnc~ ~ ~ Redeveto~ P1~n for ~e Town Cnn~r A~4 R~evelo~n~ ~ ea~ end Cdln~ on ~ sou~, ~an S~ ~und~ by ~o~ Argue on ~e ~s~, a 11ne a]on9 $ou~/Can'~l Ama Redevelopment Paqm ~ ~s t5 ~d t6 of ~l~a~s ~or~ of Los Angml~ ~u~, Addl~ton u s~ on~a ~ ~o~fl tn ~K t, P~ ~ of ~t~.llan~S u . ~a~ ~ton of $~Ofl ~, ~7, 20 and ~ ~ as. ~or~ ;f O~fl~ ~o ~. ~ - - -----~ nO ~41an, 411 ~et'~ tn B~INNING a~ ~e'Wes~ ca~r of L~ ~6 ~ s~ off a ~ of T?~ ~O. ~527 ~o~ In ~K ~, Pl~ ~ and 39 of ~t~alla~ ~os, R~O~ of 0~ ¢ou~, ~td ~tn~ al~ ~etnq ~e ~erly c=~r of ~e ]and ~ ~, t~ fa 8~K 876Z, Pa~' ~-, tn 0fftctal ~o~ of ~s along ~ ~ty lt.-of said la~ ~ T~s~n ~1 Ots~c~ of ataflq said cu~ ~u~' ~ c?~lL~'~n'~. ~e ~u~ 39'~5'~1" ~.. d~ m ~e O~flqm ~ ~aod ~1 0tS~C~ ~,.~u~s~rly ~c~ and t~ ~u~eas~rlY p~Ionga~tan ~u~ ~un~ ~d.~n,~l ~lfl ~' .~.s~rly li. of ~td land ~ O~nq, ~0'~6'07' ~ ~.~8 f~ ~ ~ ms~ '~rly ~o~ co.er of LoC ~u~ 7, t~lust~i, ~ell~us ~gs, ~o~ of Onn~ CouP, ~td' ~e along ~* ~u~Pty lt~ of ~td R~tll Argue ~d i~ ~u~Urly pmlong)~o ) ..... c~. ~rty li~ of ~dln~r_Av~e ~or~ Se0~er 7, ~9~ in ~S 5~6, Page ~7~, in Orlflge IRVINE~FB~ ~N~A~ON HO. 81 (~O~)' ~ ~e CIW of Tus~tn, as a~ by 0rdlni~a ~. 7~ da~ i~l ¢, ~977 ~y ~e Ct~ ~u~tl of said Ci~; l~lHE-~ ~N~ ~0. 81 and ~e South Tusttn ive~e Annexation ¢~u~eS: ~o~ 39'i3'18' ~as~ ~7.~ f~t, ~O~ 0'l¢'18' ~t 64.27 ~9'~2'1¢' Eas~ 255.71 f~, ~o~ 39'S3'~8' ;as~ ~O.O0 f~t, Sou~ iO*16'~" ~st 36.70 f~t ~ a ~tnc in ~e 'deer line of Old Tus~tn Avenue ~ s~ on a ~ e~tl~ "~o~ F~ay i1~ o* 'gay ~a~, ~oad 7-~-65' per File ~o. 96t8 in ~e Office of ~e Cou~ iu~e~ of Orange ~un~i Sou./Can':re1 Area ~ede~elopNnC ~age 3 ~a ~lo.g ~e ~rty tn ~oK ~8, P~ ~ ~d 31, of ~t~all~n~ ~ags, ~o~ of O~nge ~ Off~ ~ ~ Of ~y ~ou~: ~ ~10,~..~ ~.~ ~. ~ ~'~$'47' ~ ~.OS "~a~ ~a ;~ ~t~ of ,Way ~e O~ce of ~m ~u~ ~r, C1~ of T~s~n ~ ~ ~1ts~ ~y ~e ~lyard A~on ~r' A~xatton' ~. Li (R~s~) ~loflg ~ ~ty p~lon~on ~ ~e ~rty 1t~ of (1 ~ R~I (Fo~rty . .'~' S~) (~.~ f~ ~de). ~l along ~td ~ly ~lan~on ~t~. of ~ts~n S~ betflg ~e ~u~erty 11~ of ~e F~ge ~ as ~ ~ ~td Rt~ ~e ilofl~ ~ld ~tY ~loflq~tan of ~td ~u~Ert7 1t~ ~ ~ls~fl ¢o~av~ ~s~Pty ~vtnq a ~dlus of ~n along ~td 1928.46 f~ ~. ~ ~qle ~ly p~loflga:lon said angle ~t~ ~etnq tn li~ of ~ Av~e ~t~ on ~e ~e~rty p~longa~ton of ~e ~u~eas~rty ll~ of said ~ Argue (80.~ f~c wide) ~s s~awn on a ~O ~o~ in Soak 7~, ~e 4long said ~s~rty p~longa:ton of said ~u~eas~rt7 1t~ of ~ A~e ~u~ ~u~tY 1tm of ~ lane s~ on satd R~O~ of ~ey~ · L53, Pages ~ ~d T~' ~e~t~ of ~e. ~tne. Smdl¥tsten ~n ~e Ct~ of T~s~tn, ~un~ of ~ls~mes: ~ 89'19'~1' '4~ ~7;5Z f~ ~u~ 39'~'~" ~ 359.69 ~c ~.OO f~ ~ ~ anele ~t~ ~n sa~d exts~l~ ba~i sa~d ~t~ betng ~ an~l ~ .~-..~,,~ v ~e ~a~ af ~ema. aloe' satd hu~rty l~ of ~uifl ~t ~u~' ~ ~,~ f~ m a ~tn~ of t~m~ton ~ ~e Sou~urly p~Ion~t~ of ~ ms~ ~rty 1t~ af T~ ~. 8760, ~ g~ ~ ~or~ tn B~ 36Z,.~ ~ ~d ~6 Qf ~ella~ ~Os, ~o~ of s&~d ~ alon~ sald ~ l~m a~' t~ p~lon~Cton ~ 3~eSS'SSe 3~.5~ f~ ~ ~e ms~ ~erl~ ~ co~r of ~td T~ ~a. 8760; ~gs, ~o~ ~f sat4 ~un~1 ~.~2 f~' ~ an ~gle ~tfl~ tn ~e baun~ of ~t~ ~; ~ema con~n~ alone sa~ ~oun~ SQU~ SO'~O*30' ~S~ Z~O.O0 ~ ~ an angle T~ ~o. ~&, ~ co~e~ ~e~ng ~ ~tn~ ~n ~e :~n~J~ne af 8~n Avenue f~ ~ ~e PO~ OF ~e ~OVe ~bed land ~on~tns ~5.~gO ~s m~- or ~ess ~d ~s can~ ~t~ ~ exts~tng C~ af Tus~ln ~evelo~' ~oufl~as. $C~U'I'I-i/CENT'RAL REDEVELOPMENT REDE'VELO PME~'i' AGE.NCY el'FY OF 'l'lJb-i'lN E~'IIIlT 1 ¢cr'Y OF C. (~. 3031 ~omm~ctal-~e~.,3~l Uses. Comm. c(al-~.atl uses am pefltt~:~i tn ~ a~ dest~a~ off a~tlta~ ~ ~ ~Y ~e ~1 P~an of ~ C~, ~ C~ ~tc(pal ~M ~ ~e C~ ~ntng p~an, ~ ~mml. Plan, me Ct~ ~ntc~l ~, ~ ~e CI~ ~ntn~ 0.. C~. G) Offlc~mfKslonil ~s~' ~e ~ng ~. Of~c~fes~toflal ~s~ t~lude, ~ ~ ~: ~1tntc3. ~cal. legal. ~I ~, &~h~l, ~ a~ o~ g~fes3{onil Qf~4c~ ~fld ~. (~. ~ ~fl~s~al ~ses ~velo~, and ~tllca~d in ¢onfa~e ~i~ ~s plan, Ge~I P~afl, ~e C~ ~fl~ct~al ~de, ~e Ct~ ~ntng O~tname, and Oe~ela~ ~ltctes of ~e C~ of Tus~n ~ ~sum ad.am ~esl~ of pa~t~ ~co~tans, ~fflc ¢t~ula~ton. and ~e pmwnCton of ~lsama ~la~d ~ mtse, ~ke, a~r an~ ~ m 11re and ~. (~. 3~1 Pmltc Uses, ~. (Sc. 307~ P~11ct S~1tc and ~ns~onal Uses P~ltc, s~-p~ltc a~ tns~t~toflal us~ am pe~ ~n ~e ames ~stgna~d on ~e CI~7 ~ntng Ma,. Sm~ uses i<lu~, cen~ ~d ~e~ s~~s ~d f~tlt~tes. ~ou'c~/Cen'~'sl ~r-ee ~,edaveloment. P~3,iact us~ ~ a~tllta~ classics for T~s~tn Ht~ School. develo~ Of t~. P~ ~u~ua~ ~ ~ts Plan. S~ p~llc s~, alleys, rtg~~f'~y a~ eas~n~ shall be ma/or ~es~an t~fft¢, ~ ~tl ~ for public "P~va~ o~ ~acm'~r ~s~mttc ~ ~attonal ~. (S~. 3~0) Intake Os~s ~ct~, ~e Age~y is au~O~z~ ~' use or ~mtt ~e ~ of ~y la~ in ~ PmJ~ a~ for in~m ~ aggllc~le s~ es~lts~ Zoning Ordinate ~d Untfo~ Builqing Code for g~rtims wi~in ~e City. ~o~, come~tal ~uild~ngs, and p~fmssional office buildings'. s~c~s. ~ st~ of t~ s~c~r~ is gove~ by t~e ~oning tn~a wt~ ~ltc ~e of std~lks ~d tn caflqo~a ~ou~/Cen~r~l ~.edevel o~nenc Page ~ envt~ tn ~l P~% ~l. ~e~fo~, ~ch plans s~all give constde~t~ ~ 9o~~ ~i~tgnt o~ spa~ i~ o~ su~ ~ni~tes Z. (S~ 3~7.Z~ ~ls~n~ ~o~onfamln~ ~ts plan, p~vt4K ~aC. su~ ~ ts ~e~tfl~ by ~e g~,~al~ c~a~4ble ~ ~e ~wlo~ ~4 uses ~n penetration ag~n% ~4 ag~ ~ ~e i~os~=tofl of mason~le, res~tc~lons ~ am n~assa~ ~ pm~ ~ ~evelo~n~ and ~se of ~ ~ 3. (~. 3~7.2 ) ~en~ilt:~ton and Ke~en~lon of s~all aO~mve fo~ m~n~on a~ mn~t11~t~ s~all wtll ~ sa~ a~ sou~ Iff all pflystcal ~sG~. a~ tn a~ra~m ~ ~t ~Mfl:l m ~e ~un~tng uses. &. (~. 3~7.&) ~t~ Air ~fld Iff all ~ms. ~fftct~ s;acm ~all ~ ;mvt~ ~. ~tn~tfl~ ~mvision ~ ~in~nmncm s~atl ~t be less ~a. ~ m~i~ sm~ fo~ in ~m Cl~ [,ning O~inancm. On ~s~ si~ s~all ~ ~m~ tn ~ P~ ama only in ¢onfo~t~ wi~ a~lica~le s~ s~s ~¢ local laws. including, wt~ou~ limt~lton. ~ ¢1~ ~nict~al Co~m. Omsi~ for all signs s~all bm ~i~ ~ ~ Ag~) ~ ~ d~elo~ ~la~ f~ e~ p~e~ ~ ~ 6. (S~. ~7.~) Utilities ~e AgeflQ shall ~ui~ ~aC all u%tlttt~ ~ plac~ uflde~und 7. (S~. 317,7) tnc~attble Use~ ~o ~e or s~c~ w~ic~ ~y ~ason of a~gearance, ~af~Ic, glad, noise, odor, or similar fac~ ~uld be inc~ga:tble ~e ~unUtn$ arm,s or s%~c:ms s~ll ~ ~mit~U in of t~e P~ a~a. 8. ($~c. 317.8) ~ancUsc~mneCton 4nd ~oneecj~CJacton. Theft, ~]~ ~e ~' 41sc~mtn~clon or m~C~on ~. ~fl ~ ~ foll~ lefl~ shall ~o~e~ he~n ~v~efl~ by ~ for ~m~lf, ~ts ~m~n~s~a~, a~ ~3~g~ ~ ~1 per~o~ cl~m~ng ~fl~r or ~u~n ~, ~a~ ~ ~ell ~ ~ ~tsc~mtna~lofl a~ s~lon of, ~ ~e~on or g~u~ of ~cI, color, c~, ~]tg~on, ~x, ~a~l m~a~ton ~ ~fe~I ~ ~ ml~Qn, location, s~l~s, or v~s ~n ~ p~ses he.tn ~v~ ~y m~ for ~t~lf, ~S ~r~, ~, ~nts~. a~ azztgns, a~ ~11 pe~ clamtng under ~aC. ~ s~e]l ~ ~ ~t~mtnactm a~tn~ or s~acton of ~y ~ or ~'of ~ans, off ~cou~ of ~ca, color, ~, ~llgton, ~, ~1 s~, hi,tonal o~gln, or ~as~, tn ~ le~tng, ~l~ztng, ~ansfe~ng, use, a~, ~, or e~o~ of ~ p~s~ ~emtn leas~ nor ~11 ~ le~ ~t~lf. or any ~r~fl clatmtng under or ~u~ ~m. es~l~s, or pe~: a~ su~' pra~t~ ar ~c~cis of ~lsc~mtnaClon or ~aCtan p~tsH ~t. leisY." 3. ~n cafl~ac~ efl~ tflm ~y ~ agony reia~t~ ~ c~ sale, ~nsfer, oe l~stng of lane or ~y in~s: ~er~tn ~quir~ Oy :~ age~ ~i~1n ~ny su~ ama or ~evelo~e~ ~e ~mgotng pmvts~ons in ~Os~n:lal~y ~e s~all ~ tnclud~ aha su~ con:rK~ s~all ~at ~e forgoing provisions s~ll ~ O~n~tng upon ~ snell oeltga~ ~ ca~ac~ng ~a~ or ga~t~ a~ any s~an~ac:tng pa~ or pa~tes, or o~er ~ansfe~s Sou,/Cuff,'Il R~evelo~ent Project'. (Sec. 317.~) Minor yaT'tatiofls order to prevent u~due ~s~. ~e-~y ~s ~o~:~ cofl~is u~l~sRed ~Y ~ts Plan. :fl o~er ~ ~: ~cn a tn prec~lcat 41fflcul~es or' ~n~es~ ~tps t~oflsts~ P~t~tng a va~atton ~tl1 no~ ~ con~a~ ~ ~e able,lYes ~ts dlfam, a~. ~ assure ¢~11a~ vi~ ~ ~u~ of ~ts. Plafl. .~ ~, ~er, shall ~e Age~ pe~: a Yuma:lan :0. (S~. 3~7.:01 .Resubdlvtslon' of Panels Age~. (S~. 3~a) Dustin for Oe~elo~fl~ tref~tc ~c~ss, a~ Q~ ~evelo~ a~ dest~ s~da~s. n~e~a~ for p~r- ~velo~ of s~tftc ~as wt~tfl :. (S~. 3:g.:] Revl~ of Applications fo~ Issuance of ~ pe~: s~a]l ~ ~ssu~ for ~ ¢ofls~c:lofl of any fl~ ~utl~ln~ or for ~y cofls:~ton on ~ ~ds:tng Oudl~tng ~n ~e P~: area f~ ~ ~ of ado~Ctofl of ~ts Pl~ until t~ aoplicaClon for SUC~ ~tt ~as b~fl p~cmssad in ~e ~ner ~ifl p~vid~. su~ pe~tt ~a~ is issu~ ~s: ~ in confo~an~ ~i~ ~mvistons of ~is Plan. Review of all ~iM s~atl ~n~ ~ p~vtd~ for )y ~e Cl~ in ~ agplic~le 0~1 nasa. (S~. 320) Affo~le Housint k. (S~. 320.L) Allocations of Tax Revenue for Affordable Houstnt ~e Agent) shall alloca~ not less ~an 20 ~ant of incr~:al pu~ses of increasln~ ~d tmgmvlng ~e c~fltty's supply 1~' 1nc~ ~ ~f~n~ W ~ons ~.~, S~93 and 50105 of ~e ~]ifo~ta ~al~ and Safe~ Co~. of ~1 ~ ~v~ far affa~le ~n~ ~y ~e ~ housing ~s ~n. ~ ~t~y Is ~tflg ~e, afl~ ~e~ ~ts ~ f~r~l ~u~ for 1~ ~ ~eri~J~. ~loM or. ~fl ~tne~lon wl~ ~ ~ allied under l~tsla~l~ ~' snell caflst~ ~ fl/ ~ ~ ~e ~fl~ly ~fl ~e of dtsgl~ of ~ons t~ of ~s~ ~10~ og~n~l~, or ~u~ of ~ny b. ~t~n ~O ~ fall~l~ ~ ~ of ~ ftfldl~ un~r suOatvt- C~t~ O~elo~ a cagy of su~ ftn~lng, ~Iu~1~ ~ f~il infa~lan ~ggQ~tng ~ Hndlng. C. In ~ lt~gl~on ~ ~lll~ge or a~cY ~ Hndtng ~de s~tvtston (Ii, ~ bu~ sail1 ~ ~0~ ~e ~e~ ~ es~llsfl ~ac ~ flfldtng ~s ~Og~d ~Y ~s~141 Jn 1tg~. ~ ~ en~lm ~o~ ~efom ~e Age~. 3. (S~. ~0.3) P~ of ~ A~e~ tn P~vtd~n~ Af~o~le ~us~ n~ exe~t~ ~ or ~11 of ~ ~w~, ~luat~ ~ following: 1. ~qul~ IaAa or ~utldln~ ~. [~ve 14n~ or butldlng st~s wt~ onst~ o~ offst~ 3. OQn4~ lind ~ p~va~ or puOtlc ~r~ofls or ~tctes. 4. Cofls~ ~u~ldlng or s~c~s. S. ~t~ buildings or s~c~s. 7. P~vlde ~stdles ~, o~ ~ ~ ~enefl~ of, Ye~ tnc~ hous~ol~s, ~o~ 1~ ~QUSe~QldS, O~ pe~ons and fmtlies of Iow or ~er~ incom. 8. O~ei~ plans, pay ~rtnct~l or lntm~s~ on bongs, loans, a~c~s or o~er in~ness, or ~y ~nanciml ~r~ing c~a~es. b. ~e Age~y ~y u~ t~e~ fun~ ~ ~et, tn w,ole or in ~iec~ ~using )revisions of Settan Soul:~/Cantral Redevelogmen: P~o.iect c. T~e Agency ~ay usa t~esa~ funds. 1ns1a' or ou~im l~a. ~e Ag~c7 may ~nly ~e ~se ~n~s ou~lda ~tna~t~ ~y ~e Age~ a~ ~ l~tsl~tve ~ shat1 ~ f~nal aha ~l~tve ~ m ~e' ~s~e' of ~ne~: m ~ ~: area. Regla~ ~ust~ pu~u~ ~ S~:ion 3~ ~s ~mtn~ of ~eft: ~ a ~ts s~l~ s~aH cons:l~~ m I~ess of' ,d~e~er ~ll~ng unt~ houstng ger~o~ a~ f~tlt~ tnc~ ~ustng ~ec ~ ;a~ of a ~evelo~e~ P~, agency ~al~, ~t~tn ~uP ~ears o~ suc~ ~s~uc:ton or ~val, ~n~tllM~, devetag or cans~c:, or cau~ ~ Oe develog~ or ~nst~c~, for ~n~l or role m ~rlons or ~in ~ a~al juNs~tcti~ of ~ ~. (S~. 3~.~) Allocation of' Af~a~l~ Housint Uni~ a. At l~s:~ ~e~a~ of all n~ or ~ilt~ ~lling uni~ 4evelop~ wt~tn ~e p~J~: a~e by m agency s~a.ll avatl~le at affable ~ust~ cas: for pe~o~ a~. f~tlt~ of. 'pe~e~ ~ s~all ~ avatl~le a~ affo~le ~ust~ cos:' ~, ~ ~:ugt~ by, le~ low inc~ ~useboids. b. Atlas: LS ~: of all ~ or ~tlt~ ~lling unt~ ~evelooe~ ~ln ~ P~J~ a~ by puOIlc or p~vam enittles or ~nS o~er ~ ~ Ag~Cy s,all ~ avat~le affo~le ~ust~ co~: ~ pe~ a~ fmlli~ of low or ~tra~ i~. Of ~C~ L5 ~afl~, nO~ less ~4n ~e~ s~all ~ avatl~le at affQ~le ~oust~ c~sC ~ow tnc~ tn~ivt~4l ~sl of ~t1~t0n, develQ~, Or ~as~c~lon of ~lllng ~nt~. ~e Agen~ shah r~utm ~a~ ~ ~gg~a~ n~eP of ~vel~tng uni ~ mflamt~ ~ ~, ~eveloo~ o~ cons~ruc~ ~u~uan~ s~dtvtsion (1) or (2) ~in avallaOle ~C affo~le housl~ cos: ~ ~rsons an~ f~tlies of low or ~dera~ in¢o~ an~ very Iow lnc~ ~ouseflolds, ~sa~ttvely, for no% less t~ ~e land use ~n~ls ~lis~ in ~e Re~evelo~en: Plan. 4. (S~. 32~.4) Replac~n~ Hausint Plan a. ~o: less ~an 30 day~ p~or ~ ~ ~u:ion of an ag~: for acquisition of ~al p~ge~, or :~ ex~u:ion for ~e disaositton ~ develo~t of g~Y, or ex~u:ton of an o~ pa~icipation ag~en:, ~uld lead ~ ~e dest~ction or ~val of ~elling units t~ l'~ a~ ~ra~inc~ housing manet, t~e Age~ s~all adog: by ~solu:tOn, a ~lac~: hou~ing ~lan. masofl~le tim prior m adogtl~ a ~plac~e~ ~ustng plan I¥. r~sol utlon, ~e ~1~ ~tng pl~ ~.11 t~lu~~ (L) ~e ~1 flna~t~ s~ a~el of f~l les ~tlt~tton, a~ (S) ~' U~le f~ ~t~ ~ plan's A ~lling'untt ~ ~lacm~ is ~ui~ by ~ts S~:ian but ~e s~all ~d~a~lnc~ ~ustng m~eC until ~ Agency ~as by ~SQI utlQn or ~vlng ~llln~ ~tC ~i~ ~e Age~ ~ and ~i~ is m i~ta~ ~ b. W~ ~iling ~(~ ~era~i nc~ p~K:, ~e Age~ s~ll', vt~tn fo~ yea~ of sa~ desto:ton or ~al, ~1~ or ~tng ~d C~t~ Oevela~C u~n ~esC ~ ~ ~vie~ by S. (S~. Wh~ ~e Aee~ caum ~' ~il'i~:lon, deveJo~ or f~lly ~l~s, p~u4~ ~ ~ts s~t~ p~marily for pe~ons pmvtd~ su~ p~ is acntev~le tn ~ efflcle~ a~ :tmely A. (S~. ~) General,, ~e ~e Z. Pmvtdtng fa~ ~ctg~lan by ~ners ~O ~iden~s presently locz~ in p~se~ s~C~ ~ suff~rtfl~ f~ de~rfor~ton r~ui~tng as3~ s~nce; ~. ~haeill~tton of s~c~ms afle i~mv~nM by present o~ers, ~etr s~casso~ or the Age~; Sou,/Central p,a<Mvelo~Mfl~ p~3,~ec~. s~t ~t~ g~a~ c~sslngs. (7) 0~11~1~ or (8) ~nag~ can~l (g) 01sgos~ton of ~n ~ I~1~ton ~C ~. or ~r ~t~ by law. ~. (S~. ~). Pa~c~pacton b~ O~e~ ~d Tenan~' ~. (S~. ~.~) Op~nt~tes far ~ and T~an~' ~tntng ~1] or ~ ~on of ~et~ pm~tes~ (2) ~y ~l~ng a~aca~ ar o~ ~mve~t~ ~ ~ ~ a~a; o~ (3) ~y sei~ng ~ p~ a~a, tn ac~a~a~ ~t~ ~ts Pl~ a~ ~e ~ul~ for ~ts Pl~ a~ ~e ~ltfomta C~nt~ R~mvelo~n~ Law. ~e Age~- ~lness ~evelo~ ama, If ~ey o~e~ise ~ ~e m~t~n~ pmscrib~ in ~ P~an. ~e Agen~ snell also ex~ pr~fe~ncas ~e~elo~ of ~e P~j~ a~a or ~ ~en~r ~t~tn ~e ~evelop~ pmsc~b~ ~y ~ne P~an. Su~ bus~ness, ~stCen~tal, Institutional an~ pu~a~ a~ ~evelo~ mai pm~e~ ~n ~ a~a. pu~ua~ S~on acqul~ $ou~.4~/Can~-sl Ar~a ~edevelo~n~ (Sec. ~.Z} ~ules Pot ~r~ctctp~l:~on ~9~r~ntC~es? ~tortl:~as cQn~l~ d~elo~ ~e~' ~ ~sl~ of pn~lctg~ for ~fl~ Or' ~C~g~ D~~' ~ ~v~ of ~e~elo~ ~1~'~ ~ Dest~ ~or o~elo~C ~fe~ m' tn S~on 318 of ~ts Pl~.. pe~a~ a~ f1~, pa~tct~a~t~ s~all ~ available f~r ~ ~ns, M~ or ~ns~Ctofls, ~ jo~n ~ge~r tn ~er1~lps, suOs~ellY m] p~ls ~ pemons ~ M~ ~ lill~ ~ ~ fac~rs ~: ~ elimtna~on ~ ~nglng of A~ s~ll en~r tn~ a ~t~t~ ag~ wt~ ~e Agt~ pmvtsto~ of ~ts Pl~ am aggltc~e ~ ali ~ltc a~ C.(~. ~} Coo~ra~ton w~ Public 6o~ies Ca.tn ~ltc ~tes are ~a~z~ by S~ la~ m aid ~d ~t~ or ~t~uC consideration, ~n ~ plaflfling, un~e~king, cons~c~on, ~r o~ra~on of ~ts P~. ~e Agency s~all ~e~ ~e aid a~ C~eraCton of su~ p~llc b~l~ a~ s~all a~ ~ c~tna~ WIs Pl~ wi~ ~ ~viCles of' suc~ puBIfc ~tes in good. ~e Ag~CY, ~Y law, ts ~. au~o~ ~ K~tre ~al D~Y own~ By puDl~c ~odl~ wt~houC ~ conse~ of su~ puDl~c Ocqtes. T~ Ag~c~, ~er, ~] ~ek ~e coc~r~Clon of all ~uOllc ~tes ~tc~ o~ o~ tn~ ~ acquire pmpe~ in C~ Pm~ a~a. Any ~ody ~tc~ o~s or leases 9~ tn ~e P~J~ arm4 will ~ Sou-_q/Central A~a Radevelol~aent Page t6 afforded all ~e prH~ila<Jes of o~ner and ~nanC ~tcl~atton ~a~ fs willing ~ en~ar inn ~ p~tct~ct~ ag~ ~ :o~ of ~uOltc land, buildings, f~c~lt~tes, s~c~s, or o~er ~ul141ngs, ~act~ttes, s~ or o~r t~ ~ ~ney ~c~ ~e Age. dec.tries a~ ~;~a~ ~ al~ev~a~ a~ f~naflc~al bu~ or de~ ~sul~flg f~ ~ ~e C1~ ~il on Janua~ ~, ~82 by ~asolu:iom ~o. 82-~ c~a~ a b~ Res~lu:io~ HQ- ~, a~ off Feb~a~ 7, ~ m consist of ~e~ of C~ - M~. Jeff Tus%in ~ntf~ed ~hool DisCo% - M~. La~ ~. ~on Ha~son ~s. ~n C~n~ ~=~se~Ci~ - (as ~;o~n~d by ~ Counc~l~ Pu~ua~ ~ A~cle 6.~,' C~ag~r ~, ~ltfo~ta ~yelo~ Law, ~s plan ~. (~. ~S.1) Ac~ts~%lon of Real ~xce~ as s~t~tcally ex~ heroin, ~e Age~y ~Y PmJ~ ama, by any ~afls au~o~z~ by law. It ls in t~e publiC tntm~s~ end is necessa~ in o~er ~ eliminate t~e conditions ~uiMng ~evelo~nt and in order Plan, for ~e 7~er of ~inen~ ~in ~ be e~loy~ by t~e Agency ~ ~qui~ ~e ~ml ~ge~y in ~e p~J~t a~ w~tc~ cannot acqui~ by gift, de~tse, exchange, 7u~ase or any o~er lawful ~od. In ~e ~ent ~mt ~nent ~in ~cmedtn~s shall n~mss~, ~ey ~s~ ~ enac~d ~i~tn ~lve yem~ of ~e fo~tton of ~e Redevelo~nt p~j~t Area. If ~e Age~y has adogted a ~develo~nt plan but has not co~nc~ ~ ~tnent do. in preceding ~ ~cquim a~ pa~tcular' Page t7 value. ~f ~. Ag~ ~s ~ w~ln ~ ~n~s h:-~. ~ file m a~t~ a~ln~ ~e-~e~ In lnve~ con~a:t~ ~ssesst~' 4~' U~ of' ~ ~i pm~ ~sultt~ ~ ~. 1~' upon ~tcfl ~ ~c~ ~ local. ~e Ag~y bulldt~ Is ~ ~ coflCtnu~ on ~ p~ st~ ~ ~n or ~t~l~on; (Z) ~ st~, ~r ]~ on ~tc~ ~ but~lng Oesl~ ~r Nvelo~ ~d ~ MP falls o~ mfu~s pe~ctHm. ~fl ~ts Pl~ ~ ~Ct~ ~. pe~c~pac~ 4g~.. p~lc ~les ~cfl ~. m~ cofl~nc ~ ~cn ~tsttton. ts' lu~z~, ~er, ~ ~qut~ p~ltc p~ge~ ~flsfe~ ~fld ~e ~er ~le~s ~ts ~gonslbt11~tes ~d~ a ~tclpe~ton ~ pa~ of ~- co~ of ~c~tst~t~ Of 111 p~ge~ ~cqut~ tn ~ltfo~t& Oegi~ of ~usln9 end C~ Oeveio~ ~fld p~lga~ ~ ~e~, 4nd ~ Ag~y's ~]es Z. (~. ~5.Z) ~tsttt.ofl of Pemoflal n~s~ In ~e ~u:ton of ~ts P~, ~ Agency is ~ns ~ca=C ~tnen~ ~tn. ~u~ng suc~ ~ -- Pm~, Jf any, in ~e Pm~: can~l of ~e Ag~cy. Sue, pm~e~ ~ay ~e ~d oe 1easea ~e Age~ ~n~t~ t~ dtsgosl~tan Far ~evelo~n~. ~ suc~ mn~l ~r i.se ~ail ~e gumu~ ~ such ~itctes ~ ~e Agency (S~. ~7} ~eloc~ton of Pemons (tncludln~ Individuals F~i t ies) ~ ~us~ ness Conca~s ? ~na others ol sp~ a~ed b~ $out~/Cent'r~,l ?.ede,~elogaten'C project; L. (Sec. 407.L) xssts:aflce ~n F~ndtnc] Ot~er Lncattons. T'ne Agency stMI1 as$t$1: ,q.l pert, one (in¢ludt~g tn~itviduals aflci f:mlltaa), bustneea coecar'n$, ~fld c~t~em disgl~c~ by r.~e in flndlng o~er ~ocaCians afl~ f~ctltttas. In or,let ~ ¢ar'r~,' out. Z. (S~- ~7.Z) ~ Mdc, a~ shall ~K~ su~ additional r~tocaCtofl pa~n~ as ~ay be ~ ~ law. ~uch ~l~acton ~M shall ~ ~ee ~uanC Assls~e La~ (~ve~C ~de, ~:lon 7~60 et. ~q-) and ~ L. (S~. ~-~) o~it~onsnd C~eamnc~ lns~11~ ~d. ~fls~C~ or ~ mtmu~e p~ya~ pm~ lnclu~, buc a~ ~c limt~d mi over-~d u~er-~sses, b~¢ges, sys~S, ~rts, al~as, playgm~ds, ~tng facilities ~q 3. (S~. ~.3) preparation of auildtnt building st~s any ~I g~ge~ in ~ P~J~: a~a own~ by ~e Age~. ~e Agen~ is al~ au~o~z~ ~ ¢ons~ foun~tlons, ~la:fo~, and o~er s~uc~ml ~ n~es~ for ~e pmvtsion or utilization of ~ir ~tgn~, si~ for ~uil¢tn~ ~ ~ us~ for 1. (~. ~g) Pmpe~ Otspasitlon ane Oevelo~n: L. (S~. ~g.L) Rem1 E~a~a~ Otsgositton and Oevelo~e~ a. (Sec. 40g.L~.) General, of' g~l ¢1~1act~ In ~ c~t~ far ~C' 1fist ~ succ~s~v~ aC ~ ca~ fl~ ~ ~c~ ~ co~ of ~Ollca~on: (2) A s~ ~1c~ ~c~bes and sg~lftes: ~ ~ fair ~eC val~ of tm in~ m ~ coflvey~ or let~d, de~n~ aC ~ ~tgmsl ~ ~st u~ ~ ~ ~ Of puOltca~on of ~ ~rsC ~Ctc~ of ~ app~vtng ~ch le~ or gle ~11 ~tfl ~fldtnds ~C pemit~ under W p]~, ~C suc~ lesser coflsiders~lon A~8~ shall be Qf~e~ far ~saIe width o~ year afar c~le~tan of ~lll~Clan or m annul ~o~ ¢oflcarntng suc~ pr~r~y ~ea] p~ acqui~ by t~e Age~y ~y ~ ¢onvey~ by the Agent7 Pu~hase~ or lea~ of p~ge~ acqutr~ f~ the Age~ snell be ~ ~liga~ ~ usa ~e ~m~rty for ~e ~o~s ~stgna~d in a ~rlo~ ~ U~ .~tc~ ~e Ag~cy ftx~ as mason~le, ane ~ ia~ ou:. ~e ~o~s of ~is Plan. $ou~/Cenl:ral ~e~eYe~l~uen~ Pro, ecl: P~ga ~.0 O. (Sec. ~9.J.2) )4oc~ce c~ Owners and TenanC~ T~e no~ce of ~ w~l~c ~er~ng ~r ~n~ ~all ~e gtv~ p~or~ee To ~v~ a~ saf~a~ ~11~, ~11 ~1 ~ sold, lea~, or convey~ ~y Lellls, ~, ~fl~l~, 4~, a~ d~lar~ons of ~s~c~ofls of. ~e Ag~c7 su~se~enC, ~Ole ~des, m :a~ ouC ~s Plan. All p~ tn ~ P~ ~c~ofl ~aC ~efl ~all ~ ~ 4~sc~mtnaClofl or ~q~aC~on ~as~ u~ s~, ?KI, color, rel~g~an, na~on41 o~1tn, or ~c~s~, tn ~e ~le, ~eue~ lease, s~le4se, or o~ .s~a11 ~n~tn ~cn ~ndlsc~mtfleclon ~ ~n~1~a~on clams ~ · d. (5~. ~9.~4) Oevelo~n~ b~ ~e A~en~ or O~er Pu011c Bodtes or ~fl ~' ~ ~ or ~ef~r ~u~o~z~ ~ P~Y fa~, de~elog, or cans~ ~Y ~uildtng, facility, s~--, or o~r i=~v~t eider, wi~in or ~ p~ a~a, for i~etf ~i¢~ buildings, facilities, tn~ ~n~mc~, l~s, and ag~ ~ ~e City or o~mr p~lic b~ or enCt~ pu~u4~ ~ltga~lon of ~e Ag~cy un~r ~c~ can~mc~, lea~, or ;ey~le ~c of me ~es levt~ in ~ Pmj~ a~e ~a ~11~ ~ the A~n~ und~ suOdi~ision of S~ton 33670 o~ ~e Caltfo~ta ~evelo~en: ~w ~e ~er S~on ~00 of ~ls Plan or out of any o~ avail~le funds. e. (S~. ~g.~S) Oevelo~n: Plans All develo~ plans (wne~er puOlic or a~va~) s~all be suited ~ ~e Agency or' a~Mi~ral ~vtew. All deveto~ in the P?~J~ ~on~o~ ~ ~is Pl~ ~d all ~ltc~le Federal, ~, an~ local ag~ctes. ~. (S~. ~9.Z) Pe~oflai Pm~e~ Otspostttofl Fo~ ~e ~oses o~ ~ts Plan, ~e-Agency is au~ortz~ ~ Mll, lease, ~cbaflge, ~nsfar, ~sstgn, ~ladge, eflc~er, or ot~e~ise dlsgo~ of ~r3onal ~m~ ~icn is ~tr~ by ~e Agency. $ou~/¢~n~r~l Page (Sec. ¢].G) ~aflaOlltt~tonT Conservation? ~fld ~vtn~ ~. (~. ~G.~} ~efl~tlt~ton ~ Conse~a~ton a~t ~1 st grit flc~8. As ~msza~ tn ~tng ~ ~ts Plan, ~ Aq~y ts ~y. s~ or ~utldlng which ~ ~ ~tli~d ~ a l~a~tQfl width or ou~iM ~ (S~. ~) Const~lon of ~ublic FacilittK l~, ~ ~m ~KtQn of ~l't~ buildings ~ f~llittes, ~y be, but s~]l n~ n~s~ly be, Io~ Z. (S~. ~.Z) C~fl~I A~ Trans~ctan Facllitte~ a. Orm~m S~ be~ La~fla ~o~ and S~ Juan c. ~l~t Av~ be~ N~ Av~ a~ Orange d. Alley ~u~rty of ~lfl~ S~, be~ N~o~ Av~ Or~e S~ e. Allay. ~u~erly Qf ~n ~ S~ ~ M~Q~ Av~ Or~ge 3. (~. &I~.3) Sou~ Am T~ns~ton cu~, gun. r, siU~iks, ~vin~, s~t ~s, an~ s~t lighting, ~y thc)uae, bu~. s~mll no~ be ltmi~ ~, ~ fQllawi~ gr~: e. ~o~ Aven~ u~nsion ~t ~r~M ~ Edtnge~ b. Wld~tng of Edt.n~er S~t ~ Re~ Hill Argue ¢. '~" S~ be~n ~Faddefl Av~ue and Mltc~)l Avenue d. Mt~ll. Aven~ be~n ~e~Q~ Aven~ and NISSQn e. 'C" S~ ~ Mt~ll Av~ and t~ ~e~ty ~in~ Trmffic canal davicas may bt tns~]l~, but not limi~ foll~i~ loc~tto~ wi~in ~e Sou~ ~ou~/¢~nV. ral ~e~aw~ o~xaonV. ~dtn~ b~ Oel ~ ~na Ne~a~ a~ ~Or~ Ave. be~n and Wa1 B~u~tftc.a~on P~ ~3S ,oeo 354, ~0 T~fftc Cofl~l s ~o~ Canal Factlttt~ ~v~es ~d loans ~r ~ ~d pl~fltn~ ~d for ~ ¢~t~1 for n~tnal ~lnts~m~ton of ~ls P~ have be~ lm ~ ~ pmvtd~ Oy ~e Cit~ un~tl a~a~ ~x tncr~nt or o~ fu~ a~ available, or sufficiently assured, ~ repay ~e ear.cms ~d lo~s ~a ~ ~it bo~wing adequa~ ~rting ce~i~l vmrio~ ~lic facilities. Count7 of Orange ~Y be ~a~ ~r ~ s~ system. So~ ~ven~ of Ag~c) ~nds. Also, all or a N~lon of ~e ~rting ~ir~ or o~e~t se. ~e Agency ts ~o~z~ ~ issue bonds f~ ~t~-ttme if Cha~r ~, A~tcle of ~e R~evel~efl~ Lnw. Sou~/Cen~crsl ~edevel ogmen~ ~e Ct~ or ~ o~ p~ltc ~e~y~ (~.. ~) T~ ~n~ ~un~s ~ ~ ~y or f~r said a~ ~4 (far ~ ~'o~ a~r ~. effK~tve ~, O~n~ ~as~ ~llz~ on- ~' ef~e ~ of ~d o~lna~ s~all ~ ~ In ~ntng ~. ~ ~a~ton of said ~evt~ ~n~ ~ s~t~l' ~ ~f ln~ ~ ~, l~s, ~ys ~v~d ~, or lnd~es~ of ~ ~le.~mge~ tn ~ P~ ~ s~ by ~ las~ In ~e PmJKt ~11 ~ ~t4 in~ ~ ~s of ~ msg~lve ind~ess, tf ~y, mn~ tn~s~ ~e~n, ~eve ~n ~id, all ~ pa~ton of ~es ~ntian~ in su,~tvtston (Z) ~ove ~rm a~ in~s~: on t~ adva~ of ~neys, or ~aKi~ of 104flS, or ~e incu~ng of ~Y ind~ess (~e~er ~nded, refundS, assr, ~ o~ba~tse) pmj~t in ~le or in ~e Ag~c7 is ~a~z~ ~ ~e ~c~ ple¢ges ~ ~ sg~lffc a~mncas, loans a~ indm~ess as a~g~g~ tn c~t~ out (~. ~) O~er Lo~ns and Gr~n~ Any o~er lo~s, gmn~, gumran~es, Hnanct~l ~ssts~nca Unt~ S~s, ~e S~ Sou~/Cent~al Radevelo~aenC P~jec~ P~ga Z¢ O. (S~:. ~4) Se~rm<jaClon of Funds for Housing The ~unds which ~. ~tr~ by ~ton 320, ~ ~y fn~r~s~ ~: ~c~ ~t~ ~ea~. ~ loans, a~as, bonds, and o~er ~ or ~lis~ by ~ Ag~ ~ya~ ~m. ~ad of ~ years ~ ~ a~o:lon of ~e O~lnan~ aag~vt~ ~e R~evalo~n: Plan. ~ts limi~tien on ~e ~m of ine~n~s, snail ~t ~ cons~u~ ~ ~. /nsil~tlm a~ c~le~ of p~lngs for o~entng, clostng. tn t~e P~ ama. SucR ac:toff by t~e Ct~ snail tnclu~ t~ r~tr~n: of ~domen:, r~val, rmlocatlon by ~e public u:lli~ ¢~ani~ of ~eir ogera~tons in puOlic rights-of-way as ~l~ s~all be cons~ ~ ~qutm ~ cos: of su~ aOaneomen:, ~val ~4 ~location ~ bom by o~eri ~an ~e one legally ~qul~ ~ be~ su~ ~. Insertion a~ c~letton of precedings n~essa~ far ¢nang~ and 3. Revtston of zoni~ (if n~assa~) wt~tn ~ PmJ~ ama ~ pemtt ~e lane uses ~a ~velo~: au~o~z~ by ~i's Plan. ¢. Perffam~¢a of ~e ~ave ~:tons. an~ all ~er ~nc:lons and sa~tcas ~tltt~ ~ public ~eai~. safety, a~ p,ystcal devela~ nomally mnaer~ tn ~co~ce wt~ a ~e~ule ~ic~ and ~ ~ c~le:tOn wi~ou: ~n~assa~ ~eiays. xI. . XlI. The ~er~a~tng a~d cma~le~tng of ~ca~ for t~ nondtsc~tmtnaCt~ a~ ~ns~a~i~ p~vistom whi~ S~Qns ~-~ of ~' R~elO~C Law, Or by ~y o~r Tus~tn Cl~ ~11 e~ in ~e Tuztin B~ ~ ~e Orange ~unly ~e Ag~c7 ~ ~e. City ~u~tl S~M HeaI~ and ~fe~ Code. ~ followi~ s~:to~ a~ a synogsis of ~e t~acM p~sen~d in ~. (S~. 1201.~) I~act Arisint F~ Rel~atton S~nda~ ~lling uniU als: in na~erly ~o~ton of t~e Sou~ ~ni~ density. ~ts will ~i~ ~ousing ~c~ations. Wi~ new ~ng units ~tng ~ns~uc~ by Z. (Sec. IZOd.2) l~'~ on Traffic Circulation, ,ltt~in t~e Central ama, t~ ins~lla~io, of ¢u~s, sid~lks. ~d s~t ~wing will ~e ~affic ~ow on local ~ a~ alleys, p~ im~a~ will ms, l~ f~ inc~as~ ~s~tan ~f~ty wi~ ~asts ~n ~s~t~ ~4 bicycl~ ~fflc ~ ~e ~us~tn Hlg~ gu~, st~l~ md ~t ~wtng. ~ts will i~se. aso~ ~ ~e Cos~ ~ F~y (~) and ~edhill Av~ by )enefft rill result ~ in~tvt~ts ~ live in ~ Tusttn ~ia an~ c~ ~ N~, Cos~ ~sa, sou~ San~ Aha, [~tne a~ omni tt es. ~m i~ will ~c~e ~ ~t~ a~int dtr~t o~ l~al delays in ~fftc bm~Ks, S~Q~ ~CaSS tt~ ~ Ne~o~ Aven~, ~mug~ ~ leng~ of N~o~' Averts. 3. (S~. [ZO[.3) I~ on [nvim~l Qualt~, A s~-mm n~attv~ i~a~ will ~sult f,:~ ~af~Ic, noi ~ Av~m ~us~ by l~as~ ~afftc a~ noise. & Seduces ~ntcl~ai s~tcm wt~tn an~ wi~ ~ P~ ama. ~loy~. of ~ indus~l l~ sou~erty of ~Utngm~ S~t will gain ~nv~ient ~cass ~ ~ntt7 facilities ~c~ ~ ~ hos~i~l, ms~uran~, stoas, ~ public f~ctlttles. ~c~s will be i~v~ ~ pmvtd~ ~e~gency ~fcas of ~ltca, ftri an~ pa~tcs ~ ~ l~ a~ointng ~e Pr~ area. ~. (S~. ~ZO~,~) I~act on Businesses in ~e Am~ Bustness~ wit~ln.~e P~ a~ ~ ~tl as t~o~ in ~e Central business dts~tct w~ll be enfl~ncad ~ ~ result of i~v~ ~c~l~3tbilt~, P~tma~ ~eneflctmrt~ will ~ ~a Tusttn Town C~n~r on N~o~ Av~ ~d ~e Old Town Business ~nit7 on C~ina Real. 5. (S~. ZZO~.~) I~¢~ an P~e~ Values & T~xas I~mv~fl~ ~ mai ~mge~ will result in ~igne~ ~ssass~ values and tnc~l ~x mv~s ~ ~e p~j~t arma. ~esa inc~sas in ~ will ~ n~tn~l 4~ ~ ~ llmit~ a~ f~r of p~va~ pmge~. ~ncreasas tn ~les ~xes arm antlclga~ result of ¢~1al es~,lis~n~ witbtn t~ c~nt~ cad,ring ~ ~ ~ton of area ~l~s ~ ~lcas. $ou-,~/Can~el ~edeYaloMmflt 7. ($4C. ].20]..71 [II~4C~. an Ph,/$~¢31 & SQ¢~i1 C2~ar~ce-.lr of ~+~e ;¢elC~noQr~QQ~S ' · TO ~e exr.~ ~i~ ~rtlons of t~ P~ p~va~ ~v~lo~nC, c~ ~t-ll ~'"- ~ton Of' ~ts pl~. By ~ ~cton of ~ R~evelo~ Plan, ~ ~tfl~m of p~va~ Fatlum m a~ ~d ~1~ ~ ~evelo~. fu~ de~o~Ct~ of ~e P~ a~u stn~ ~ ef~tve ~l~s~ ~ts~ ~ at~ fn ~e ~vt~ll~Clofl of. ~ a~as. ~ ~evelo~c ~11 ~ pla~ off tsola~ pmpe~t~ b~ ~ c~arac~r of su~ufl~ puOllc ~zls~. F~fl~s ~ ~C ava~l~le ~ ~]ar ~ ~v~s , p~ ~ ~d ~tde~s. ~e aJ~aCtv~ a~ m de~oa~ wt~ ~g~fl~e a~e~ t~ ug~ su~ufl~t~ PlUm ~ eflha~.~ qualt~ Of ~ p~sl~] e~t~flC. ' · NeJ~tt~ ~tS~ tS p~vtd~ for t~tvt~]S, ~u~ li~t~ tS ~t~ far ill ~ t~ of ~tSe ~]~ng ~ i~is~ ~afflc off ~o~ Av~. ~ will ~ttga~ ~e l~l of l~d ~fc ~t~tga~d by ~e m~ ~d ~fldtttafls Qf ~i~ ~uaflC develo~ pa]~ct, of ~e ~1~ of Tus~tn. 3 4 RDA RESOLUTION NO. 85-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN DETERMINING THE ADEQUACY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 85-1) AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR THE SOUTH/CENTrAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT § The Redevelopment Agency of the city of Tustfn hereby resolves as follows: 6 I. The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds and detemflnes the following: ? A. A Prelimtnar~ Plan has been prepared and circulated for' a $ proposed amendment to the South/Central Redevelopment Project. B. A proposed plan amendment to the South/Central Redevelopment 9 Project has been prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission and Advisory Committee, based on the Preliminary 10 Plan. 11 C. A Draft Environmental I~act Report (DEIR 85-1) has been prepared by Phillips Brandt Reddick, following notice of 12 preparation and staff review. 13 D. Draft EIR 85-1 adequately addressed environmental metiers of concern as identified in the Initial Study and incorporates 14 mitigating measures. 15 II. The Redevelopment Agency hereby transmit~ the Environmental Impact Report and proposed South/Central Redevelopment Project Plan 16 Amendment to the Planning Commission for public hearing, report and recommendations and authorizes circulation of Draft' EIR 85-1 as 17 prescribed by law. 18 19 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn Redevelopment AgencY held on the ~J day of ZFu~ , 1985. 20 21 FRANK H. GREINKE, Chairman 23 MARY WYNN, Secret~r"Y 27 AMENDMENT No. 1 July 1985 .AMENDM. ENT NO. I SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AMENDMENT CITY OF TUST1N REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AlqEMDIql[MT NO. 1 TO THE PE. DEVICLOPIe[~'I' Pr. All FOR THE $OUTH/C£MTRAL IUCDEV£LOPflEMT PROJECT SECTION I (Sec. zOO) OF THE SOUTH/CEMTRN.. NtF. A P,F. DEVELOPI~cM'r PROJECT PI.AM 15 AIqEMDED ~ RF. AD: I. (Sec.100) INTRODUCTION This is the Redevelopment Plan for the South/Central Redevelopment Project areas in the City of Tustin (the "City"), County of Orange, State of California, and consists of the Text and the Redevelopment Plan Map ("Map"). This Redevelopment Plan was prepared by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tusttn (the "Agency") pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health & Safety Code, Section 33000, [et. seq.]), the California Constitution, and all applicable local laws and ordinances. This Redevelopment Plan provides the Agency with powers, duties, and obligations to implement and further the program generally formulated in this Redevelopment Plan for the redevelopment', rehabilitation, revitalization and maintenance of the areas within the boundaries shown on the Map. This Redevelopment Plan does not present a specific plan nor establish specific projects for the redevelopment, rehabilitation an revitalization of any area within the South/Central Redevelopment Project are~ boundaries. This Redevelopment Plan does not present specific proposals in an attempt to solve or alleviate the multitude of concerns and problems of the community and the citizenry relating to any such areas. Instead, this Redevelopment Plan presents a process and a basic framework within which specific plans will be presented, specific projects will be established, and specific solutions will be proposed, and by which tools are provided to the Agency to fashion, develop, and proceed with such specific plans, projects and solutions. It is the inl~ntion of this plan to encourage private enterprise to engage in as much of the redevelopment activities as possible. The exception to this being those duties or improvements which normally fall within activities of the public sector or require participation or assistance in order to expedite the project activities. An environmental assessment of the general nature of the project is included in Section XII of this plan. A specific and focused Environmental Impact Report pertaining to the extension of Hewport Avenue to [dinger and possible grade separation at Red Hill and £dinger has been prepared by LSA, Inc. A copy of the focused [IR is on file with the City [ngineer and in the Tusttn Branch of the Orange County Library for public revie~ and comment. This plan is separate and distinct from the Redevelopment Plan for the Town Center Area Redevelopment Project. RDA Amendment page two Amendment Ho. 1 to the South/Central Redevelopment Project is-an addendum to :he Redevelopment Plan for the purpose of expanding the project boundaries to accommodate necessary public Improvements and to provlde a circulation system to ser~e the area. ' An rnvtronmental Impact' Report (EIR 85-2) has been prepared: in conjunction with this amendment and copies are on ftle. with the Communtt70evelopment Oepartment of the. Cit7 of Tustin and the Tustln Branc~ of t~e Orange CountT Library. Except as specifically herein amended, the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the South/Central Redevelopment Project, adopted August l, 1983, shall apply. entire pro~ec: area Including the. terrlter7 added hy this amendment. The flndtn~ of blight tn the area of amendment and justtflcatlon for :he expansion of the project boundaries are contained within the Report..to the Ctt~ Counctl. SECT~o# z. ~CT~o# ~! (Sec. 2oo) OF' THE: ~OUTH/C~#TRAL R~OEYr:LOPH~NT PROaECT PtAN II. (Sec. 200) PROJECT AREA BOUNDARIES The boundaries of the project areas are Illustrated by the maps shown as Exhtbtt 1 and further described by the following legal descriptions for :he South and Central areas. The South area is generally described as the area southerly of the :-5 freeway bounded by the. Costa Mesa ~reeway on the west, Newport Avenue on the east and Edinger on the south. The Central area is generally described as the area southerly of Main and Bryan Streets bounded by Newport' Avenue on the west, a line along C.C. Lambert School on the east and Bonita Street on the south. The boundaries of the amended area are i11ustated by the map shown as Exhibit A and further described by the attached legal description. The amendment area is ~enerally described as the 137.7 acres bounded by Edtnger Street, Red Hill Avenue, Valencia Avenue, and the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR SECTION 3. SECTION III. A. (Sec. 301) OF THE SOUTH/C[NTRAL R~DEYELOPI~r. NT PROJECT PLAN IS A~ENOEI) TO P~_AD: A. (Sec-. 30I) Land Use Limitations Limitations on the use of land within the project area are governed by the General Plan for the City, the City Zoning Ordinance specific plans for territor~ within a project area, and the City Municipa~ Code. CITY 0~' "I"USTIH' page three LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH-CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA IN THE CITY 0F TUSTIN That.portion o~ Lots 55, 56, 67, 78, 79,. 80, 81, .g2"and 83 in Block 10 of the' Irvine Subdivisiom., as shown; on a map recorded in Book I, Page 88, of. Miscellaneou~ Maps, r~¢or, ds of Orange. County, and tba.t, portion of. Section 16.. Township 5 South, Range 9 West,. ' San Bernardino Meridian, all being in. =he City of Tustin, County. of Orange, State of California, described as follows.: South-C'en=ral Re. development Project Area adopted by the City of: Tustin, pet Res.olu=io~ No. 8'1-13 on December 7, i981, sei~ Sou=herly morner being ~he in~ersection' o~ ~he SOuthwesterly prolongation of the So. uthess=erly line of Red Hill Avenue (60 foot half-street) and the Southeasterly prolongation of the Southwesterly line of Edinger Avenue (formerly Moul=on Parkway, 40 foot half-street); Thence leaving, said existing South-Central Redevelopment ?rojec= Area boundary.along said Southeas%erly line of Red Hill Avenue and its. Southwesterly prolongation, South 39053, 23" West 890.57' feeu to an angle pofx= in said Southeasterly line; Thence. contlnuin~ along said Southeasterly line of Red Hill Avenue. North 50°0~' 07" West to an angle point on '.said South- easterly Line' of R~d Hill Avenue... (50 foot half-street); Thence' continuing along said Southeasterly line of Red Hill Avenue an'd its Southwesterly prolongation South 39053'23" Wes= 1360.95 fee= to a point on the. Southeasterly prolongation of ~he Southwesterly line of~ Valencia Avenue (40 foot half-s~reet); Thence along said Southwesterly line and said Southeasterly prolongation' of Valencia Avenue North 5~ 05' 12" West 2660.97 feet to a point on the ex/sting City of Tustin Boundary created by the Warner-Sycamore Annexation adopted as Ordinance No. ~45, 'dated December 2', 1963 and =he Irvine-Myford Annexation No. 81 adopted as Ordinance No. 71~, dated April 4, 1977, said City of Tustin ~oundary also being the Southeasterly line of Old Newport Avenue (30 foot half-street); Thence along said existing City of Tustin Boundary through the following courses and distaoces: North 39053'38" Eas~ 2230.81 50006'22'' West 60.00 feet, North feet, mor~ or less, North 39053'38" East 20.00 feet to a point on said existing boundary og =he $~uth-Central Redevelopment Project Area, also being on ~he Northwesterly prolongation of the previously said Southwesterly line of Edinger Street (40 foot half-street); Thence along said ex/sting boundary of the South-Central Redevelopment Project Area South 50o06'07'' East 2730.77 feet to the POINT OF' BEGINNING. The above described land contains 137.746 acres, more. or less. page four ROA Amendment page fi ye SECTIO# 4. ~ECTZON IV. O. (Sec. 404) OF THE SOUTH/C~NTRAL REOEYELOP~ENT PROaECT PLAN [$ ~I~ENOEO TO REAO: D. (Sec. 404) Project Area Conm~ttee The City Council on January 4, :982 by Resolution No. 82-: created a project area comflttae. The composition of the comfit:er was amended by Resolution No. 83-8, adopted on February 7, 1983 to consist of the following: Chamber of' Commerce - Mr. Jeff Mc£1derry Tusttn Untfled School District - Mr'. Larry Sutherland Residential Owner Occupants - Ms. Betty Truit, Mr. Jon Harrlson Residential Tenants - Mr. [lmo Anderson, Ms. Ann Ourkee Community Representatives - (as appointed by :he Council) Pursuant to Section 33385.5 of the Community Redevelopment Law, Mr. Jeffrey K. Gwin, Regional Director of the Santa re Pacific Realty Corp. (a major land owner within the project area) was appointed to :he Project Area Committee on March 4, ~g85. On March 18, :985, the Redevelopment Agency appointed Mary Lilly as a member of the Project Area Comnrfttee. Pursuant to Article 6.5, Chapter 4, California Redevelopment Law, this plan was reviewed by the Project Area Committee during its preparation. SE~ZO# 5. S~CTIOll IV. lC. (Sec,. 411.9) I$ ADOED TO THE SOUTH C~)ITRAL RF..DEYF.,LOPME)IT PROJECT PLAN TO REAO: g. (Sec. 411.9) Improvements in Amended Area Potential transportation improvements are shown by Figure 1, and cost estimates for the project area are shown by Table IV-g, extracted from the Austtn-Foust Associates Inc., Circulation Study, dated January g, ~gS~. The projects are more fully described in the Austtn-Foust Study and consist of the following: Newport Avenue Southerly Extension Newport Avenue is proposed for southerly extension by grade separation over the Santa Aha {F-tO) Flood Control Channel, ATSF Railroad mainline, and Edlnger Street to interconnect with Valencia. a~l I __'1 I ! I page six 1. ~eWpor: Ave~um F-~=ansion 2. $ou~ ~ewpor= Avenue Construction E~faser L~provemencs Cons=~==io~ Cons=rue=ion TOTAL Cons ~ruc~lon IOTAL 2,$00,000 3,700,000 3,300,000 H,O00,O00 9~32~,00~ ~,$50,000 9,650,000 300,00~ 300~OOO 3OO,000 300,000 1~00010OO_ 1~700~00~ 1~700,000 21000,00~ 1,3OO,0OO 2,000,000 2,0~O)00~ 2,300,000 500,0OO 200,0OO 200,0OO 200 ) 0OO 200 ~ 000 &,lO0,000 5,300,000 ~, 900,0OO a,900,OOO &~500,CO0 7,825,000 ~,050~0~O 8~350,000 10,6OO,000 10,125,000 12,950,0OO IV- 14 page seven RDA Amendment page eight A. (2) Relocation of Costa Mes~ Freeway (SR-SS) Ramps The northbound off-ram~ to ~dinger Avenue would be deleted and replaced by not,bound on/off-ramps at Valencia. (3) Internal Circulation Improvements Circulation improvements southerly of Edinger will vary depending upon the alternative design that is selected. All alternatives will require a connection to the Valencia freeway ramp. Among the alternatives are a new roadway parallel to Del Amo and the realignment of a section of Edinger Street. (4) Edt n~er Street Improvement £dinger will be widened to. full six-lane arterial from Red Hill to SR-65 with public improvements consisting of street lights, fire hydrants, sidewalks, median and parkway landscaping'. (S) Red Hill ,Avenue Improvements Red Hill Avenue will be widened to full six-lane arterial within the project limits. (6) Traffic Signals Traffic signals ~ill be replaced at Red Hill intersection with Edinger and Valencia and a new signal will be required at Red Hill and Industrial Drive. Flood control and storm drain facilities are proposed to carry storm water from the interior of the project area to the Red Hill Storm Drain (FOg-PIS) and on to theBarranca Channel (F-09). The cost of drainage improvements is estimated at $1.4 million. SECTI0# V. A. (Sec. 501) OF TIlE SOUTll ~IITRAL RF. DEYELOPt~E)iT PROJECT PLA# IS A/~E]IDEO TO RF_AO: (Sec. SO1) General Description of the Proposed Financin~ Method The Agency is authorized to finance this project with financial assistance from the City, State of California, tax increment funds, interest income, agency bonds, or any other available source, public or private. Advances and loans for survey and planning and for the operating capital for nominal administration of this project have been and are to be provided by the City until adequate tax increment or other funds are available, or sufficiently assured, to repay the advances and loans and to permit RDA Amendment page ni ne borrowing adequate working capital from sources other than the City. The City as it is able, may also supply additional assistance through City loans and grants for various public facilities. As available, gas tax funds from the State of California and the County of Orange may be used for the street system. Some revenue will also accrue to the Project from interest earned on investment of Agency funds. Also, all or a portion of the parking required pursuant to this Plan may be installed through a parking authority or otherwise. The Agency is authorized to issue bonds from time-to-time if it deems appropriate to do so and within the limits expressed in Chapter 6, Article 5 of the Redevelopment Law. In addition to the revenue sources as described above, supplemental funds will be required to finance the public improvements. Alternative supplemental revenues can be derived from one-time development fees and/or assessment district. An assessment .district should include territory outside of the project area, on the premise that benefits would accrue to other properties alon~ the Red Hi'll Corridor. The regional benefits of th, ~rade separation of Newport Avenue and the costs of the project justif7 financial contributions from other ~overnmental a~encies. SECTION 7. SECTION Y! (Sec. 600) OF THE SOUTH C~NTRAL REDEYELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN IS AMENDED TO READ: VI. (Sec. 600) LIMITATIONS ON FINANCES As required by law, the Agency establishes a limitation on itself as to the amount of tax increment dollars which it may collect and allocate to projects and programs within th project area. The average yearly tax increment which may be collected shall not exceed 2.5 million dollars. Dollar amounts in excess of this average yearly figure shall revert back to the individual taxing agencies who are collecting those taxes generated below the incremental leval. This limitation does not apply to funds received by the Agency in the form of gifts, loans from the sale of property or services, or from funds obtained from services other than tax increment financing. The length of time that the South/Central project area exists shall not exceed thirty years. No loans, advances, bonds, and other form of indebtedness necessary to finance this plan, shall be incurred or established by the Agency beyond the period of 30 years from the adoption of the Ordinance approving the Redevelopment Plan. This limitation on the time of indebtedness shall not be construed to place any limitation on the formation or financing of another Redevelopment Project Area. RDA Amendmen'c page ten (revised) SECTION 8. SECTI01I YII. (Sec. 700) OF THE SOUTH ~NTRAL ~DEYE].0PHENT PROJECT PLAN IS AJ~ENDEI) TO READ: VII. (Sec.700) LIMITATION ON BONDED INDEBTEDNESS The South/Central Redevelopment Area may not exceed fifteen million of outstanding bonded indebtedness to be paid for through tax incremenL funds. Th(s"limitation may not be exceeded unless there is an amendment to the--~-~development Plan. SECTION 9o 8. SECTION XII. A. (Sec. 1201o8) IS ADDED TO THE SOUTH REDEYELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN, TO (Sec. 1201.8) Impact of Amended Project Area A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by Phillip Brandt Reddick to evaluate the adverse impacts of the project within the area of amendment. Copies of the Draft EIR were furnished to all taxing entities. The Planning Commission conducted an advertised public hearing on the Draft-EIR. The Draft EIR identifies adverse impacts of the project and mitigating measures. DEIR 85-1 and neighborhood impact are elements of the project report submitted by the Redevelopment Agency to the City Council. thru: BILL HUSTON, CITY MANAGER JOINT PUBLIC HEARING NO. 5 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NO. 7 TO: FROM: HONORABLE C~AIRMAN AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL R. KENNETH FLEAGLE, O.P.A., COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT NO: ! TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN SOUTH/CENTRAL BACKGROUND: Amendment No. 1 to the South/Central Redevelopment Project Plan and DEIR 85-1 have been advertised for a joint public hearing before the City Council and Redevelopment Agency at 7:00 p.m. on July 15, 1985. The report required by the State Community Redevelopment Law, Draft EIR 85-1, and Plan Amendment were approved by the Redevelopment Agency on July 1, 1985 and transmitted to the City Council. Consultations with taxing agencie~ were successfully completed with the exception of the attorney (Clayton Parker) representing the Saddleback Community College District and the Tusttn Unified School District. Since a Fiscal Review Committee was not called, the Council may proceed to adopt the amendment to the plan without further consultations. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR 85-1) on June 10, 1985. No testimony was received and a response was made to written comments. Resolution No. 85-76' has been prepared to incorporate Environmental Impact Findings and Certification of EIR 85-1. No additional comments have been received pertaining to the Plan Amendment or DEIR 85-1. August 20 is the effective date for equalization of the tax roll, which necessitates adoption of the amendment by urgency ordinance to establish 1984-85 as the base tax year. PROCEDURES: The Mayor convenes a joint session of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. The Mayor announces: "Now is the time and place for a duly advertised hearing for the purpose of considering Environmental Impact Report 85-1 and Amendment No. 1 to the South/Central Redevelopment Project Plan." Redevelopment Agency South/Central page two 3. Staff makes presentation of the boundaries, purpose and intent of the amendment. 4. The public is invited to make comments pertaining to the environmental assessment and plan amendment. 5. The public hearing is closed. 6. Staff is requested to respond to any unanswered questions pertaining to the EIR and Plan Amendment. ACTIONS: Following Council/Agency discussion, motions are made as follows: 1. "Move to certify EIR 85-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 85-76." "Second" Council voice vote. 2. "Move that the objections (if any) are overruled and that Amendment No. 1 to the South/Central Redevelopment Plan be approved." "Second" Roll Call Vote. 3. "Move that Ordinance No. 939 have first reading by title only." "Second" Council voice vote. 4. "Move that Ordinance No. 939 be introduced." "Second" Council voice vote. 5. "Move that Ordinance No.939 have second reading by title only." "Second" Council voice vote. 6. "Move that Ordinance No. 93g be passed and adopted as an Urgency Ordinance." Roll Call Vote. "Move that Ordinance No. 940 have first reading by title only." "Second" Voice vote. "Move that Ordinance No. g40 be introduced." "Second" Voice vote. Adjourn joint Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting to a regular meeting of the City Council. o Communtty Development RKF: do Community Development Department 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 85-76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 85-1, AND AMENDMENTS, AS A FINAL EIR. The City Council the City of Tustin, California does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: Ae That an Environmental Impact Report would be required due to potential effects identified in an initial questionnaire done for the proposed amendment to the South/Central Redevelopment Area. Be That a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project has been prepared by Phillips Brandt Reddtck, for the city of Tustin. Ce That distribution of the Draft EIR was made to interested public and private agencies with a solicitation of comments and evaluation. D. That a public h~aring was duly called, noticed and held on the Draft EIR. E. That incorporated within the Draft EIR are comments of the public, commissions~ staff and other agencies. That the Draft EIR and amendments were prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, State guidelines and the policies of the city of Tustin. That the subject Draft EIR has been reviewed by staff, and represent their independent evaluations and analysis. That the Draft EIR and amendments have been reviewed and considered, and that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that eliminate or substantially lessened the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in Draft EIR and amendments; and it is determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are hereby found to be acceptable by the inclusion of a statement of overriding considerations. This statement and all environmental effects and mitigating measures are listed in the attached document, Exhibit "A". Mitigation measures are specified as conditions contained in this resolution. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Resolution No. 85-73 Page Two II. The City Counctl of the ctty of Tusttn does hereby Certify the Draft E[R for the amendment to the South/Central Redevelopment Area, plus amendments, as a final EIR 85-[. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn City Council held on the day of , 1985. FRANK H. GREINKE Mayor MARY WYNN City Clerk 9 10 11 12 14 15 1¢ 17 18 10 20 21 22 23 2~ 25 2¢ 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 939 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. i The City Council of the city of Tustin, California, does hereby ordain as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: Ae Due notice was given and a joint Redevelopment Agency - City Council public hearing was conducted on July 15, 1985 for the purpose of adopting the South/Central Redevelopment Project Plan Amendment No. 1. A report was furnished the City Council by the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code), which included the reports of the Planning Commission and Project Area Committee,and recommending certification of EIR 85-1, all of which have been duly considered by the City Council. The purpose of the City Council in adopting the South/Central Redevelopment Plan Amendment is to aid in the revitalization and redevelopment of blighted properties by the primary means of constructing public works improvements to be financed from incremental tax revenues generated within the project areas. The Redevelopment Plan Amendment for the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project on file with the City Clerk of the city of Tustin is incorporated herein by reference. The South/Central Redevelopment Project Plan and Amendment No. 1, as referenced herein, are the official redevelopment plan of the project areas. A Draft Environmental Impact Report {DEIR 85-1) was duly prepared, circulated, and advertised for public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Findings were made, adverse impacts identified, mitigating measures and overriding considerations were stated. The City Council certified EIR 85-1 as complete and adequate by adoption of Resolution No. 85-~.~ The City Council, having final approval authority over this project has reviewed and considered the information contained in EIR 85-1 prior to approval of this project. All evidence and testimony regarding the adoption of the South/Central Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 1 has been duly considered by the City Council and the objections presented are hereby overruled. II. The City Council further finds and determines as follows: Ae The findings and determinations required by Section 33367(d) of the Health & Safety Code of the State of California are as follows: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18; 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 939 page two Se The project areas are blighted areas, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the California Community Redevelopment law. 10. The redevelopment plan provides for the redevelopment of the areas in conformance with the California Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of public peace, health, safety and welfare. The adoption and carrying out of the redevelopment plan is economically sound and feasible. The redevelopment plan conforms to the general plan of the community subject to an amendment of the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways for the extension of Newport Avenue to £dinger Street. The carrying out of the redevelopment plan would promote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the community and would effectuate the purpose and policy of the California Community Redevelopment Law. The condemnation of any real property would be accomplished only if necessary for the execution of the redevelopment plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. There are no families, persons, nor housing units within the amendment area and no relocation plan is required. Although there are no families and persons displaced from the project area as a result of this amendment, the plan provides for the set-aside of twenty {20~) percent of tax increment revenues for low and moderate income housing assistance, which will assist in accommodating the housing needs of families and persons working within the area. All land within the amended project area is contiguous to the existing South/Central Redevelopment Project Area and its inclusion is necessary for effective redevelopment of the project. Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part; that any such area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area without other substantial justification for its inclusion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 939 )age three 11. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the project areas could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acttng alone without the aid and assistance of the agency. 12. A fiscal review committee was not called for this project. The Redevelopment Agency by agreement with the Orange County Water District has eliminated any detriment to the District caused by the loss of incremental tax revenues. The City Council and Redevelopment Agency find that the effect of tax increment financing will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from the project area, except as mitigated by separate agreement with the taxing agency. The City Council is satisfied, that permanent housing facilities are not required since there are no displaced occupants within the amendment area and that permanent housing facilities for potential workers and their families will be available within the community within three years of plan approval. The City Council, based on the findings contained with the Report of the Redevelopment Agency, preliminary plans, and related reports and recommendations, hereby: A. Approves and adopts Amendment No. 1 for the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project Plan. Bo Declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceedings necessary to be carried out by the city under the provisions of the plan. IV. The City Council finds and determines that the immediate adoption of the ordinance as an urgency measure is necessary to protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare and ordains that this measure shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the city of Tustin, California, held on the day of , 1985. Attest: FRANK H. GREINKE, Mayor 4ARY E. WYNN, City Clerk 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14: 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 25 26 28 ORDINANCE NO. 940 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. I The City Council of the city of Tustin, California, does hereby ordain as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: Due notice was given and a joint Redevelopment Agency - City Council public hearing was conducted on July 15, 1985 for the purpose of adopting the South/Central Redevelopment Project Plan Amendment No. 1. A report was furnished the City Council by the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code), which included the reports of the Planning Commission and Project Area Committee,and recommending certification of EIR 85-1, all of which have been duly considered by the City Council. The purpose of the City Council in adopting the South/Central Redevelopment Plan Amendment is to aid in the revitalization and redevelopment of blighted properties by the primary means of constructing public works improvements to be financed from incremental tax revenues generated within the project areas. The Redevelopment Plan Amendment for the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project on file with the City Clerk of the city of Tustin is incorporated herein by reference. The South/Central Redevelopment Project Plan and Amendment No. 1, as referenced herein, are the official redevelopment plan of the project areas. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR 85-1) was duly prepared, circulated, and advertised for public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Findings were made, adverse impacts identified, mitigating measures and overriding considerations were stated. The City Council certified EIR 85-1 as complete and adequate by adoption of Resolution No. 85-~.~ The City Council, having final approval authority over this project has reviewed and considered the information contained in EIR 85-1 prior to approval of this project. All evidence and testimony regarding the adoption of the South/Central Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 1 has been duly considered by the City Council and the objections presented are hereby overruled. II. The City Council further finds and determines as follows: Ae The findings and determinations required by Section 33367(d) of the Health & Safety Code of the State of California are as follows: 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2,~ 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 940 page two 10. The project areas are blighted areas, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the California Community Redevelopment law. The redevelopment plan provides for the redevelopment of the areas in conformance with the California Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of public peace, health, safety and welfare. The adoption and carrying out of the redevelopment plan is economically sound and feasible. The redevelopment plan conforms to the general plan of the community subject to an amendment of the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways for the extension of Newport Avenue to Edinger Street. The carrying out of the redevelopment plan would promote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the community a6d would effectuate the purpose and policy of the California Community Redevelopment Law. The condemnation of any real property would be accomplished only if necessary for the execution of the redevelopment plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. There are no families, persons, nor housing units within the amendment area and no relocation plan is required. Although there are no families and persons displaced from the project area as a result of this amendment, the plan provides for the set-aside of twenty (20~) percent of tax increment revenues for low and moderate income housing assistance, which will assist in accommodating the housing needs of families and persons working within the area. All land within the amended project area is contiguous to the existing South/Central Redevelopment Project Area and its inclusion is necessary for effective redevelopment of the project. Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part; that any such area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area without other substantial justification for its inclusion. Ordinance No. 940 page three 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~. 12 13 14 III. 15 16 A. 17 18 B. 24 Attest: 27 MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk 11. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the project areas could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the agency. 12. A fiscal review committee was not called for this project. The Redevelopment Agency by agreement with the. Orange County Water District has eliminated any detriment to the District caused by the loss of incremental tax revenues. The City Council and Redevelopment Agency find that the effect of tax increment financing will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from the project area, except as mitigated by separate agreement with the taxing agency. The City Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities are not required since there are no displaced occupants within the amendment area and. that permanent housing facilities for potential workers and their families will be available within the community within three years of plan approval. The City Council, based on the findings contained with the Report of the Redevelopment Agency, preliminary plans, and related reports and recommendations, hereby: Approves and adopts Amendment No. 1 for the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project Plan. Declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceedings necessary to be carried out by the city under the provisions of the plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the city of Tustin, California, held on the day of , 1985. FRANK H. GREINKE, Mayor