The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-02-21; City Council; 13046; GREEN VALLEY INITIATIVE REPORT- CIT-" OF CARLSBAD - AGEW" BILL 4f Q 9 B # j3jOYb ECOMMENDED ACTION: CITY MGR. &?% EPT. CM CITY ATTY - DEPT. HD TITLE: 1TG. 2-21-95 GREEN VALLEY INITIATIVE REPORT Accept the Green Valley Initiative Report and direct staff appropriately. ITEM EXPLANATION: At the January 17, 1995 Council meeting, staff was directed to prepare a report pursuant to Elections Code Section 4009.5 on the effect of the proposed Green Valley Initiative. Elections Code Section 4009.5 (now Elections Code Section 9212) was adopted by the Legislature in 1987 in order to provide the voters with information regarding an initiative's effect on a city's general plan. That section provides that the City Council may refer the proposed initiative measure to staff for a report on the following things: e its fiscal impact 0 its effect on the internal consistency of the City's General Plan and specific plans, including the Housing Element e the consistency between planning and zoning e the limitations on City actions under specified sections of the Government Code relating to discrimination in land use decisions 0 and any other matters the Council requests. The attached report has been prepared by staff to deal with issues relating to fiscal impacts, General Plan and other planning issues, and legal issues. It is recommended that the City Council receive and accept this report and defer the decision as to whether or not to place the Green Valley Initiative on the ballot until the Supreme Court's decision in the Devitu case. This report will be supplemented and updated to reflect that the City Council. decision and any additional information that results therefrom when the matter is returned to FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the Green Valley project and the initiative summarized in the attached report. EXHIBITS: 1. Staff report - Analysis of the Green Valley Initiative. . EXHIBIT 1 *, e e ANALYSIS OF THE GREEN VALLEY INITIATIVE February 21, 1995 *- FISCAL ISSUES The Green Valley Master Plan and Initiative are both designed to provide the City with guidance on how a significant parcel of vacant land may develop. Since the ultimate type of development, density of use, and required infrastructure will have an effect on the City’s operating and capital budgets, it is appropriate to analyze these measures to determine their potential fiscal impact. The following section provides information on the fiscal impact of both the Master Plan and the Initiative. Much of the detailed fiscal data has been taken from the attached fiscal analysis prepared by Onaka Planning & Economics, a report prepared for the City as an independent review of the Green Valley project. A. Effects of the Green Vallev proiect on the City’s Operatinq Budqet The Green Valley Master Plan proposes to construct 612,000 sq. ft. of commercial retail space and 400 dwelling units on the site just west of El Camino Real and south of La Costa Avenue. This compares to about 200,000 sq. ft. of commercial retail space and about 172 dwelling units allowed by the initiative restrictions. Using these numbers as the basis for an analysis of the fiscal impact of the project has produced the following information. The City’s operating budget will receive approximately $767,000 less per year (after buildout of the site) under the initiative limitations on land use. As the table below shows, the Master Plan project would yield approximately $1 million per year in net revenues compared to about $233,000 provided under the initiative plan. In addition, the net revenue to the City from operation of the project during its first ten years will be reduced by $6.74 million under the initiative plan. Fiscal Impact on General Fund - Operating Budcret These figures are based on the net revenue received by the City from the project. Net revenues are those revenues in excess of the cost of providing any additional City services required by the project. 0 0 i B. Effects of the Green Vallev project on the Citv's Capital Budget 4- The total demand for capital facilities will noit be significantly different under the two scenarios. The demands for streets, drainage] park facilities] and other public infrastructure will remain substantially the same under either the Master Plan or Initiative development. Although the initiative restrictions will ensure that the subject property develops to a lower overall density, publicly funded infrastructure as required in the Zone 23 Local Facilities Master Plan will remain as currently programmed. The reduction in density required by the Initiative will translate into reduced capital fees being paid by the project as building permits are issued. Although the total effect of the reduction is difficult to calculate at this time, the magnitude of the effect will be several hundred thousand dollars over the life of the project. The City staff will need to review the Capital Improvement Program to determine the effect of this reduction on the proposed project list and the fee programs that support those projects. C. Effects of Creating Mandates for Unfunded / Unanticipated Capital Facilities The Green Valley Initiative envisions the inclusion of an recreation area of 25 acres for "active recreational facilities; the possible location site for a community library; and a small amphitheater." Based on this definition it is assumed that the intent is to develop the recreation area in some way for public use. Using existing rules of thumb for recreation area development, the construction of 25 acres of park land would cost approximately $3.1 million if developed to normal park standards. If the recreational facilities were to include features such as an amphitheater, additional costs would be incurred. These costs are currently not included in any fee program or the City's Capital Improvement Program. Under the City's Growth Management Program there is no need for additional park or library space. The construction of these facilities would provide services significantly in excess of those required under Growth Management standards. Since these facilities are not currently included in any fee program, funding would have to be provided through private sources or from the General Fund. Use of the City's General Fund would require that the City Council reduce spending on services to provide funding for the construction of facilities. In addition, prior to the use of General Fund monies to construct these facilities, the City would need to rnake a determination that the expenditure is in conformance with Chapter 1.24 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (proposition H spending limit). The cost of maintaining 25 acres of community park property is about $I 25,000 per year. This cost is not currently budgeted. These maintenance costs would compete for funding with other programs in the General Fund. The construction of improvements beyond basic park facilities would require additional funding for maintenance services D. Effects of Requiring Investment in Capital Facilities for the Master Plan and Initiative Projects The Green Valley Master Plan requires capital improvements totaling approximately $9.3 million. The initiative project, although smaller in scope, will require substantially the same improvements. This, coupled with the general reduction in density under the Initiative, translates into reduced residual land values (residual land value is the value remaining in the land after deducting the costs to improve the property) for the initiative project due to the higher per sq. ft. (or per unit) capital costs as shown in the table below. 0 0 f, E. Inverse Condemnation and/or Legal Defense Costs 4. If the Initiative is approved by the voters, the City has the obligation to defend the measure against challenges. These challenges may be in the form of claims for inverse condemnation or other legal arguments attempting to invalidate all or part of the Initiative. Based on the experience of other cities, the cost of defense of these challenges could be substantial. In some cases the defense costs or the cost of settlements have reached into the millions of dollars. If the Green Valley Initiative is challenged the City would fund the defense costs from the General Fund. The City Council would need to reduce spending on General Fund services or fund these costs from existing revenues. The actual cost of such defense cannot be determined at this time. Residual Land Value GENERAL PLAN AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT ISSUES A. Consistencv with the General Plan Land Use Element The Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Map presently designates the Green Valley property as a combination district of Community Commercial, Office and Related Commercial and Medium High Density Residential (C/O/RAH). The General Plan also designates Open Space (OS) for the environmentally constrained (slope and flood plain) portions of the property. The Green Valley Initiative would change the designalion of the property to Open Space, Community Commercial and Medium High Density Residential (OS/C/RAH). Because the Initiative amends the Land Use Element of the General Plan, there is no consistency issue between the Initiative and the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Initiative would also establish Green Valley as a Special Treatment Area requiring a Specific Plan for development. The Initiative establishes general land use regulations for development of the Specific Plan which includes the following: (a) (b) A maximum of 20 acres can be developed with community commercial uses. At least 25 acres must be active open space which includes uses such as recreational uses, park uses, community festival center, amphitheater and a possible location site for a community library. A maximum of 15 acres can be developed with medium high density residential uses at a Growth Management Control Point of 11.5 dwelling units per acre (this would allow approximately 172 units although more units could be approved if a density bonus for affordable housing is approved). (c) 4 3 e 0 (d) A maximum of 200,000 square feet of building space would be allowed for all nonresidential uses. (e) Approximately 200 acres of the property must be left in passive open space. (9 Development should be concentrated toward the southerly end of the property. Following is a chart that generally compares the level of development allowed by the existing Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Master Plan presently proposed by the property owners and the Initiative. 4- Again, because the Initiative is an amendment to the General Plan, there is no consistency issue between the Initiative and the Land Use Element. Open Space Element As indicated in the chart above, the General Plan would require approximately 40% of the Green Valley property to be left in open space. The Initiative amends the Land Use Element and Open Space Element to require approximately 80% to 88% of the property to be open space. Although there is no consistency issue because of the General Plan amendment provisions of the Initiative, there may be an issue regarding the reasonableness of requiring the property owner to retain that much of the property in open space. Often, the City is able to negotiate additional open space over that required by the General Plan in conjunction with the actual approval of a development project. Under the Initiative, the owner would be required to provide approximately 80% to 88% of open space without any actual approval of a permit to develop the property. Housinq Element Although the Initiative does not specifically indicate a maximum permitted number of dwelling units, it reduces the acreage designated for residential development to 15 acres. Given that the Growth Management Control Point for the RAH is 11.5, the number of units normally permitted by the General Plan would be 172 units. The existing General Plan allows approximately 35 acres of property to be developed at RAH or a total of approximately 400 units. Although the reduction in the acreage and permitted number of dwelling units could impact the opportunities for and the affordability of housing in the City, the Initiative states, "density increases for purposes of providing increased affordable housing opportunities, pursuant to adopted Housing Element programs, may be approved by a majority City Council vote." Therefore, the Initiative is not in conflict or inconsistent with the Housing Element. Park and Recreation Element C - 0 0 -1 The Initiative requires a minimum 25 acre area to be set aside for active open space and that development of this area, "may result in uses classified as 'active/passive open areas' under the Carlsbad Parks and Recreation Element." The Initiative goes on to state that, "these uses include active recreational facilities; passive recreational facilities; community centerfacilities; the possible location site for a community library; and a small amphitheater." If the intent of the Initiative is to require this area to be truly an active public park, there could be an inconsistency with the Parks and Recreation Element since the Element does not identify a need for a park in this area. The Initiative does not indicate whether the 25 acre area should be considered over and above any other park requirement for the property. The Parks and Recreation Element assumes that the developer of the Green Valley property would not dedicate park land but rather would pay park in-lieu fees to assist in the development of the Poinsettia Park and the other park site that has been dedicated to the City located in Zone 19. Other General Plan Elements Staff has reviewed the Initiative in light of other Elements of the General Plan and has not identified any conflicts or inconsistencies. 6 8. Consistencv with the Growth Management Plan The Green Valley area is also referred to as Zone 23 for Growth Management purposes. A draft Local Facilities Management Plan (LAMP) was prepared for Zone 23 based on development projections from Master Plan MP 92-1, The Initiative proposes to reduce the size of the project from what was proposed in MP 92-1. It specifies that no more than 200,000 square feet of Community Commercial development may be constructed. The Initiative also reduces the acreage designated for residential development but it does not specifically limit the number of dwelling units. From a Growth Management perspective, there is no necessity to reduce the size of the project. The project as proposed in MP 92-1 with the recommended mitigation measures would not result in the failure of any public facility that is addressed in Carlsbad's Growth Management Program. The draft LAMP document provides more detailed discussion of each facility, mitigation measures, and facility adequacy. If the project is reduced in size as stated in the Initiative, the Growth Management requirements for public facilities would be only partially reduced, as compared with the analysis contained in the draft LAMP. The facilities that have a Performance Standard based on population (City Administrative Facilities, Library, Parks) could have a reduced requirement if the number of dwelling units approved is less than 400. These facilities are funded by Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 1 and Public Facilities Fee. There may also be a reduced requirement for other facilities which are funded by fees or CFD No. 1 , again depending upon the number of dwelling units approved. By contrast, those facilities which must be directly constructed or funded in full by the developer, such as drainage, circulation, sewer and water, would probably experience little or no decreased requirement even if the project is reduced in size. This is because there is a threshold level of infrastructure needed to serve the project regardless of the project's size. For example, El Camino Real must be widened along the entire frontage of the property. If two bridges are still required, the cost of these would be unchanged. Sewer and water lines will have to be extended through the property. The primary cost factor in installing underground utilities is in the labor. Therefore, only minor savings result from reduction in the size of lines installed because the labor is essentially the same. e 0 c: In conclusion, although the Initiative does not specifically conflict with the Growth Management Plan, reduction in the size of the project is not required or justified by any provision of the Growth Management Program. c LEGAL ISSUES A. Supremacv Provisions The proposed Initiative is a General Plan amendment. A community's general plan must be internally consistent. That requires the legislative body to periodically review and update all of its elements so that they remain internally consistent. Courts have recognized the principal that no one element can be superior to any other. The proposed initiative contains a provision regarding its implementation which states that its provisions shall prevail over any conflicting provisions to the general plan adopted between May 25, 1994 and the date the initiative amendments are inserted into the General Plan. The legality of this supremacy provision has not been decided by the courts. There is nothing in the initiative which prevents, prohibits or restricts the landowner from applying for a general plan amendment and subsequent development permits processed through the normal planning procedures. A moratorium on development can only be declared by the legislative body by following the procedures spelled out in state law (Gov't Code §65868). Indeed, a General Plan amendment application is pending. If the landowner proceeds with his development applications and obtains permits, the issue of whether and to what extent the proposed General Plan Initiative supremacy provision can be applied retroactively will need to be resolved by the courts. If a court determines that the landowner has obtained a "vested right" to proceed with development, the proposed general plan initiative cannot be applied to prohibit completion. Generally, a landowner obtains "vested rights" to proceed with a project when he has expended substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on a building permit issued by the city. At that point, courts have concluded that the government cannot revoke development permits or prohibit completion of a project without paying just compensation. (Initiative, pg. 20). B. General Plan Amendments bv Initiative One of the other matters the Council requested in its report is the impact of current proceedings now pending before the California Supreme Court regarding the legality of whether or not a general plan can be amended by initiative. The case now pending before the Supreme Court arose in the County of Napa when its voters amended certain agricultural elements of the county's general plan by initiative. That case (Devita v. Counly of Napa reprinted at 20 Cal.App.4th 1716, 26 Cal.Rptr.274, 94 Daily Journal DAR 3838 to permit tracking pending decision by the Supreme Court) was accepted for review by the Supreme Court on March 24, 1994 following a decision by the appellate court upholding the initiative general plan amendment. The case was argued and submitted on December 7, 1994 and a decision should be forthcoming in late spring of this year. Historically, the General Plan has been seen as a legislative document adopted and amended by the City Council as necessary to keep it current and to reflect the goals, vision and general welfare of the citizens of Carlsbad. It has been described as a constitution for the future development of a community. It has taken on more and more importance in the eyes of the state legislature and the courts. The state Planning and Zoning Law generally requires the 0 0 a "t legislative body to adopt, amend and update a general plan as necessary to fulfill the minimum requirements of state law and to reflect the local community's planning needs and desires. It is well settled in California law that the adoption and amendment of general plans and zoning ordinances are legislative acts. Under our state constitution, a legislative act is taken by the legislative body or directly by the electorate through the initiative or referendum processes. The Supreme Court has specifically stated that zoning ordinances can be initiated by the voters. (Associated Home Builders v. City of Livemore (1 976) 18 Cal.3d 582). However, in a later case, the court noted that it has never considered whether a general plan may be adopted or amended by initiative. That comment prompted the Devita case. Mr. Devita is arguing that the state legislature has delegated the power to legislative bodies to adopt, amend and update its general plan and it is not subject to local referenda. He points to a provision in state law which gives the legislative body of cities and counties, and not the voters, the power to adopt and amend the general plan. That decision is critical as to whether or not the proposed initiative can lawfully be placed on the ballot. C. Inverse Condemnation ? Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the First Amendment to the California Constitution, private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. That is to say, when the government takes private property for a public use, it must pay for it. When there is a physical invasion of private property the issue is relatively straightforward. However, there is a theory known as "inverse condemnation" that requires a government to pay for private property when it regulates its use out of existence. When the regulation by the government goes too far it will be a compensable taking. However, a court cannot determine whether a regulation has gone too far unless it knows how far the regulation goes. Consequently, a property owner must apply for development permits and those development permits must be approved, conditionally approved or denied before a court can determine how far and to what extent the general plan has caused regulation of the property. In processing a land owner's requests for development permits, they must be consistent with the community's general plan. Therefore, the issue of whether or not the proposed initiative is a taking of private property without the payment of just compensation will need to be decided after the property owner applies for development permits and they have been conditioned. The test is easy to state but subtle in its application. A governmental regulation goes too far when the application of a general plan or zoning law to a particular property does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies a property owner economically viable use of his land. Preservation of open space, environmental measures, health, safety and general welfare are all legitimate governmental purposes. As to whether or not a regulation deprives a property owner of economically viable use of his property is decided by the courts. In order to answer that question, courts require an analysis to include the following: 0 0 0 0 0 the history of the property the history of the development the history of zoning and regulation how development changed when title passed the present nature and extent of the property , 0 0 c 0 what the reasonable expectations of the landowner and the neighboring owners were under state common law; and the diminution in the investment-backed expectations of the landowners 0 If the initiative is adopted by the voters and a court later determines that the regulations as applied to this development have gone too far so that a taking of private property rights has occurred, the initiative must either be repealed by a subsequent vote of the people or just compensation paid. The amount of compensation is unknown at this time. It is recommended that the City Council receive and accept this report and defer the decision as to whether or not to place the Green Valley Initiative on the ballot until the Supreme Court’s decision in the Devitu case. This report will be supplemented and updated to reflect that decision and any additional information that results therefrom when the matter is returned to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and accept this report and defer the decision as to whether or not to place the Green Valley Initiative on the ballot until the Supreme Court’s decision in the Devita case. This report will be supplemented and updated to reflect that decision and any additional information that results therefrom when the matter is returned to the City Council. Staff will return with the item prior to the last date for Council to either adopt the Initiative as an ordinance or place it on the November 1996 general election ballot (Le. on or before August 1996). Attachment: Onaka Planning & Economics Report dated 2/14/95 e 0 *, e ONAKA PLANNING & ECONOMICS OfFlCE MAIL TO 605 THIRD STREET ENCINITAS, CA 92024 P.O. BOX 230906 ENCINITAS, CA 92023 (619) 942-0366 FAX (619) 632-0164 February 14, 1995 Mr. James F. Elliott Financial Management Director City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 Re: Green Valley (Zone 23) Financial Analysis OP/E 130 Dear Jim: As requested, I have reviewed the proposed master plan for Green Valley (MP 92-01), the proposed initiative measure ("The Green Valley Balanced Use and Traffic Control Initiative of 1994"), and the financial impacts which the initiative, if passed, may have on the project and the city. The following are the principal conclusions: e The initiative measure would substantially reduce the residual land value of the property, compared to the proposed master plan. The reduction is such that a more detailed study is needed to determine the economic feasibility of the development program specified in the initiative. At buildout, development in accordance with the initiative measure would generate approximately $767,000 less in net revenues to the City's general fund, compared with the master plan. Over the first 10 years of the project, the reduction could total $6.7 million. Net revenues are on-going revenues from taxes, fees, and other sources, minus the estimated costs of providing public services to the project. e In conducting the above analysis, I reviewed the fiscal impact study of the Green Valley project prepared by P&D Technologies (P&D) and the fiscal impact model of the same project prepared by the City of Carlsbad Finance Department. The structure and assumptions used in the P&D fiscal impact study are consistent with common protocols for such studies. The P&D study is in fact slightly conservative in that it overestimates the costs of public service provision by not crediting the general fund with one-time fees for service (such as plancheck fees). The Finance Department model also relies on the same revenue and cost assumptions as the P&D study. m52 14JE.WPI 1 t 0 0 Mr. James F. Elliott February 14, 1995 Page 2 The fiscal impact model used in this analysis and shown in Tables 5 and 6 below is similar in logic and structure to the Finance Department model. However, the model’s input parameters have been updated to reflect the numbers of residential units under the proposed initiative and the revised estimates of taxable values (described in Tables 3 and 4 below). Please see the attached tables for additional discussion. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely , Onaka Planning & Economics J $a& naka, Ph.D. Encl. [M5214JE.W] D 0 a . Mr. James F. Elliott February 14, 1995 Page 3 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Comparison of Proposed Green Valley Master Plan (MP 92-01) and Allowable Development Under the Initiative Measure Project Finance and Impact on the City’s General Fund Operating Budget: Comparison of the Proposed Master Plan and the Initiative Measure Residual Land Value Analysis of Commercial Retail Development Residual Land Value Analysis of Multifamily Residential Development Fiscal Impact of Proposed Master Plan Development (MP 92-01) Fiscal Impact Summary Development Program Tax Worksheet Fiscal Impact of Allowable Development Under the Initiative Measure Fiscal Impact Summary Development Program Tax Worksheet Public Facilities to Be Financed by the Developer of Zone 23 in Accordance with the Local Facilities Management Plan Recent Land Sales of Graded Lots for Construction of Volume Retail Stores in San Diego 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. M52 14JE. WP] /2. 0 m m, 9 Table 1. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN (MP 92-01) AND ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE INITIATIVE MEASURE Master Plan Initiative MP 92-01 Measure Land Use (Net Acres) Comnercial Retail 57.9 Ac. 20.0 Ac. Residential 17.9 Ac. 15.0 Ac. Improvements Comnercial Retail 612,000 SF C11 200,000 SF C21 Apartments - Market Units 340 DU 146 DU Apartments - Affordable Units 60 DU 26 DU t31 Total 400 DU 172 DU Source: City of Carlsbad; P&D Technologies; Onaka Planning & Economics. 1. Extended Regional Retail (subregional retail) - 600,000 SF. 2. Comnunity Retail - 200,000 SF. 3. Neighborhood Retail (convenience retail) - 12,000 SF. Initiative specifies 15 acres of RMH at 11.5 units per acre, or 172 units. 26 units, or 15x, are assuned to be affordable. / 0 e -, ' Table 2. PROJECT FINANCE AND IMPACT ON THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET: COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN AND THE INITIATIVE MEASURE Master Plan I ni t i at ive MP 92-01 Measure Di f f erence Project Finance Project Value Cmrcial $70,380,000 $23,000,000 Residential 28,350,000 12,183,000 Total $98,730,000 $35,183,000 (863,547,000) -------_---- ________-__- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ Residual Land Value Comnercial $22,266,500 $1,566,800 Residential 2,044,000 (655,300) Total $24,310,500 $91 1,500 ($23,399,000) ------------ __-______--_ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ Fiscal Impact on General Fund Operating Budget Net Annual Revenues at Buildout [I] $1,000,807 /YR. $233,360 /YR. ($767,447)/YR. IO-Year Cumulative Net Revenues 121 88,865,282 $2,126,009 ($6,739,273) ------------ _-------__-_ ____-____--_ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ Source: Onaka Planning & Economics; see Tables 3 and following. 1. 2. General fund revenues net of public service costs; 1994 dollars. Sum of general fund revenues less public service costs for the first 10 years after project completion; 1994 dollars, not discounted. I' - - 0 e .. Table 3. RESIDUAL LAND VALUE ANALYSIS OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED MASTER PLAN Costs of Improvements .................... Bldg. Construction: 612,000 SF x $50.20/SF C13 = $30,722,400 Site Improvements a 7.5% 2,304,200 Major Infrastructure: 76% x $9,300,000 121 = 7,068,000 Subtotal 40,094,600 8,018,900 Total Cost of Improvements 48,113,500 Total Project Value: 612,000 SF x S115/SF 141 = 70,380,000 _-__________ Indirect Costs a 2oX C31 ------------ ------------ Residual Land Value $22,266,500 ------------ ------------ Residual LV Per Acre $384,568 /AC. _______-____ INITIATIVE MEASURE Costs of Improvements ------------------ Bldg. Construction: 200,000 SF x $50.20/SF C11 = $1 0,040,000 Site Improvements a 7.5% 753,000 Major Infrastructure: 76% x $9,300,000 121 = 7,068,000 Subtotal 17,861,000 Indirect Costs 3 20% t31 3,572,200 Total Cost of Improvements 21,433,200 Total Project Value: 200,000 SF x $115/SF 143 = 23,000,000 ___-_____-__ -___________ _-----_--_-- Residual Land Value $1,566,800 ------------ ______-__-_- Residual LV Per Acre $78,340 /AC. _____-__-_-- Source: Onaka Planning & Economics; also see notes below. 1. R.S. Means Company, Inc., for I-Story Department Store, concrete block and 2. P&D Technologies; includes Road A, extensions of Levante St. and Calle steel joists, construction price for San Diego (incl. general overhead). Barcelona; also includes major facilities identified by the Zone 23 LFM Plan for developer funding; prorated by land use. Development costs not included in costs of improvement, such as engineering, plancheck, fees, site investigations, taxes, and insurance. F.W. Dodge Real Estate Planning Service; average of sates of retail properties in San Diego. 3. 4. I - - 0 e -L Table 4. RESIDUAL LAND VALUE ANALYSIS OF MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED MASTER PLAN .. .................... Costs of Improvements Eldg. Construction: 400 DU x 950 SF x 848.20/SF 111 = ~18,316,000 Site Improvements 6l 7.5% 1,373,700 Major Infrastructure: 24% x 89,300,000 C21 = 2,232,000 Subtotal 21,921,700 4,384,300 Total Cost of Improvements 26,306,000 -____-______ Indirect Costs 6l 20% 1131 --------__-- Project Value Market Units: 340 DU x $76,500 141 = 26,010,000 Affordable Units: 60 DU x $39,000 153 = 2,340,000 Total Project Value 28,350,000 ___---_____- ---------_-- Residual Land Value $2,044,000 ------------ -----_____-- Residual LV Per Acre $114,190 /AC. ---_-______- INITIATIVE MEASURE ____--___-________ Costs of Improvements Eldg. Construction: 172 DU x 950 SF x 848.2O/SF 111 = $7,875,900 Site Improvements 6l 7.5% 590,700 Major Infrastructure: 24% x $9,300,000 121 = 2,232,000 Subtotal 10,698,600 2,139,700 Total Cost of Improvements 12,838,300 ___--_____-_ Indirect Costs 6l 20% C31 --_----___-- Project Value Market Units: 146 DU x $76,500 1141 = 11,169,000 Affordable Units: 26 DU x 839,000 151 = 1,014,000 Total Project Value 12,183,000 --_-______-- ------------ Residual Land Value (8655,300) ------------ -----_____-- Residual LV Per Acre (843,687)/AC. --___-____-- Source: Onaka Planning & Economics; also see notes below. 1. R.S. Means Company, Inc., for 2-Story attached single-family residential, construction price for San Diego (incl. general overhead). Average gross unit size from P&D Technologies. 2. See Table 3, Note 2. 3. See Table 3, Note 3. 4. Assume gross rent of $8SO/month and 7.5 gross rent multiplier. 5. Assune gross rent of 8500/month and 6.5 gross rent multiplier. is affordable to family with income equal to 65% of median household income in county. Gross rent I a 0 *% - - * I I co~+aoco VIVII~~~ NII CObrnbNU -mlNlO COII 8: NI q3Rimzoz: - .... -., E . VI,b~O~Oo,o',N, --MI; 0.-; a, N-II I In"=aMUsm:z NOCOzbU azb NU OInl - ls:g %I: I NO U M I C- I- I 1- ODII # -- I I * VI1 mo-aInO.~-I I 9 CO, II 8F2ifR9 !zE:k:k RII N0coZr-U Olnl-lO Ut1 #MI : M. In~b~ObCO~O.,N, --MI: 0.; CO, U-I1 azrC NU - ru E NI VI.?N.N--. .ob--: - U: VIO~aVI0.b-l 0 o; co bMb~-coOl I VIu-aMUsM:N I NO-U M U I M i s. 8- II I I - I- I I -- I I 1- bII : M. co~uaom VIVII m: no-a COkVIhNU -VIlk:k mM 01 NI 01 co VI.?N.N!'o! bMR$E?iE . . . I . 0 CO 0. N --M. ; 0.- ; CO, 3- ii I In.t=aMUsM:N azb do-+i~$ EVIl- au:o 0 WJi! 01 NI v?'o.N.N-'o, . OF: . - 1 E . vI~.Seo,O-N. -.n.: 0:: 50, -.:I 1 NO U M U :m:o. .I1 , F I- I I -- I I I 1- all : M! CONUaOeQ lns:k;k 5:: CObVIbNU N0coNb.t OVIl agb-NU - N; lno-aVI0.b- OB aJabMPc~-aJ, ,s:z $!I I M : 0- cob II I t I I I VIUzaMUUMtN I Zg u M- vu : m. - I- I e- VI11 -I 0. mora coabr.lKmh.-' 8peK2 sE:k:k E!! I VlutrrOMUgM8N G2rn~r-u oIn;=;:g 2;; VI O.CQ,O"N, -,~~~o',:OOI 0.11 R; VIaNNaz&z:z - ..... -., . I M ; 0- "0, II I NO-U M IU Qzb-NU .- I 7 IC I s- UII I I I -- I I I 1 : -. co~uaom v\rnib;rc COII UJ~lnbNU -InaN 0 UII GOaNbU OVIl \Ogb-NU c ls:8 51: I - IF I I- MI1 .0.?9? -.M.: 0:: "0. ".!I In.'o.N.N-'o. -0. .: . I I I 0. "0. II I zu-u M- I* ; M. 3 01 tno-aln0.brI 08 NI 01 coarCmbg-gB I VI.t-\OMUUMaN IM* I , I CONu~OaJ VIInab8b -11 OObInbNU -VIaNnO ell NOaNbU ~In1-10 OII aOb.-NU I- NII 0.1 VIo-aVI0.b-l 0.1 COY)bMbO s: ".'O-N.N.'o,-. zz: . I I E . "!~.O.=!.?? -.w.: 6.: *. %!I) :s:z- 8J I VIU-aMu~M~~ : ? 8:z MN o.4 co eFuN3Z:E c : ul29?*.9m.0.9: 0- h*-?2'0.9? -.m.: '0. I1 I mOlD.-MIO=N: : N. c I NO-U M I I c- I I I .- I- NOInONN !Q g : 0 I N U II CO-CO-UM -MUON- 2m;Oi: n I N(0 U N g VIOO-O-NM - I -0. O N , 0. n. m: VI~m-0.co 6 E!: *%,a 00," I I I I - II I- I InaOONlnCO VIInlul- 311 VI- II I :z:: !2II :i; E 6: g%kxZE$!z:a uu0.a -InIMIM I- s: sN.*.'o,o'.o'.~~'o.: 2. "~.?V!!N. NNO'OZE -.w.: ~VIlal~ VL: N! = g; 0aaco~bco-~U S!208;3;% -.M-; 3 -, : %- 5- 1 I VIaInu-bb-lM I am N - n I t MlnU z w aI 0 II -I I w I 2 n '01 moba-am-i~ mNC0.bU 2s;Ml- In I ---U-M-I=-- Oul I N I In VI I1 - - 8-10 OII 5 -I ?-.e.*. -9'0,o- ; 0- I I e II Is-,* ZMN I In~M~-coM-:~ IVI *a U a. PI W , I I- cn I 4 I: W cn 0 I I n w u) I 0 w 0 ccal In 0) w 00 .C II) al E all- u) 3 n n +a n XI " lnkm.02 B 't su) om al L wc -aL 4 - aI 5; 2 7 w.O :: - .C 2 ac >*- 2 4: u) OLal u) ucuo'-alu- u) 0 XOQwUIL 8 x mofnnr 0 3 mu)w.-CalLu- c wal -c>o Q aI1 LL 31 0 G91 c +I vu 8 2 : .E 2 E gu) u, = ulnal > ZaJ al mal 0-4- Om I xal on- 0 - -rm PI+ o m w 2 2.: rmmln.-a 2 z -5 z; u)~w.-u)-u)u)m In alu <:co-mu)rmm,~ cJ -u VI alLmL3wwT 0 wal0.r 42 co~~nmurnomuu I- mwnuu~n.~ 0 I-u uaw U -I I $ggg.E""u) QWLaJ - Q :..alp b2 ; .I? - $ wv- 0 I-wu al z mC-L .DDJ"' i 0 a %* ' - I 000 N 0000 a3 oo*a 0- I IC- ON In 0- a ** 0000 m,?u.o. uom- 0. u. M m 0 0. M !2: 0. - 01 Ne I I t , I 000 N oom a3 ooua 0- I b- ON I In 0- a I I I I 0000 ??SO* 9 9 - *OM- 0. u. M m % u: 01 0 Ni 000 N oom a3 0000 mmy?om 0 0. M *OM- 0- u, M m ooua I 0- 0. I b- ON I In 0- a m: 01 08 NI - I I I I 8 I 000 N ooa3 m 0000 a???? O. 0. M UOM- 0. 't, M m % 8: 00-a l or IC- ON I In 0.- a 01 NI I I I I I I 000 N 0050 m 0. *- M m -I 0000 a3.0.?? gom- OR ooua 0, N* * 0- t-- ON In 0- a - 0. 0. wI 8 I I 0, 01 01 NI 000 N oom co 0000 m.?"? 0. 0. VI UOM- 0- u. M m % 0- I Lip ooua ON 0- a I 1 , t I I 000 N oom a3 0 0 0 0.- a 0- 't, M m 0 32 09959 0000 oo*a ON 07 a *OM- 0. .r- 0. O. - I CI I 2- I 000 a 0. u- M a Ei I I 0 mm 000 0. 0- 0 a- *om- 0 0 N In 0000 m,O*:? ooua OOM ON 0- g: 8 EZ -- - % .. 0. 0.I IO CI IO - IM a 0 N 0. I L -I I , I I 000 u 000 a 0 LnIn 0. u- N u 88EZ ???? 0 m- 3 hI 8:: E I 3 I 2 4 -1 1 0- 00- uhm- 0- 0 I M 0. ON 0- M 0. Em 5. I- -1 =? w w I 000 N 000 M our N 0- OOInIn ooa3.- 0.- N N I 0000 0000 oo.qu.f9 .. O. u. ubM- 0.M OOSM -7 -7 - =: E: 8-8SM 0. 0. ON or M I ON n. I or IM w w I- I v) -c 5 m W ln 0 0 -aJ I mo -aJ mo -aJ cc mo I -0 mu cc Ir .r Q) mc - mc - P mc - mc I IF .r Q) nc llcr-0 30QL muxo L'C I I m'C 55 2 2 2 2 aJ : 5s I E? 2: B 4 E? 4 (uo n "UfZ 2 $3 2= g = E 2 mm .. ma.. 8mcm 44"" .-ecev)v) v)*f-: .- 4%"" *;44, 30 v)U d n. g 5; jjgg5 25'I-F Q) 2 =-: *d;gtp,2 $ZZ22 g.!?so I, dd rcl "UYO Ly. , I my. =a dd I I m'C xu u UI 0 01 U .r ..- I I .C .C v) mm. * mmw Ad .r .C , I =I =a c n.8 -- I .r .r I I g %%22 ?%%C = E .E 0 CI QaJ .E z: 35 i::EEyy qp q7$; 2qg:: 03 3gg: - aJaJ ee n~ ~W~UUZ' guvkk $E=+ v)KUU=Z g0UU $ U n. -I ot- In %!5 PC +u 01u U uu I -. - - I 00 oa -nu a0 In, 0000 In 00 a MO M In oa NO au t 0- *! z- 0. 0. 0. y? 0- N! 0. '0- 5:s $2 '.t, -. % MO 3 oa 0- -9. 0. N. z- R 8: 8-8 8 2 0- N- I 00 I corn I 2 2 E: a- 0: 9 -. I - r I R I hN 0. 00 0-0 u: 0000 In 00 a 01 00 0 (0 MO M 01 NI I 00 In I mm 0- E: 0: F: b. e. -. E: 'f, -- 2 z- E? 0: 't, 7 L E? 0: s -. E2 % E: 'f, : l? M! . : e% 8 - e c I 00 00 m: 0000 In R : 0. 9 0. In. 0, 00 0 00 I 00 In I corn -ne a0 0-n a0 : M- M! . : E% 8 - - I 00 oa N: 0000 In 00 -n MO M ON a0 O '0, 01 00 0 03 01 00 0 In NI .* m 0' a- $2 " I 00 I con : r M? - : e% 8 2 .- 0- N- R I I -I 0000 In 00 -n MO M oa NI au 0. . 2- au a0 g: O0 O O0 0. 0. 0. In. : m! ? . : e2 8 In I 00 I con 7 7 I 00 oa 0, 0000 In 00 a 01 00 0 00 mo M 01 NI a! z- 0. 0- 9 In. 0. N! 5:s Is I 00 In I corn i hN g : 22 - - , 8; 88O8 !!2 00 MO -n M " 7, 0. 0- 0. In. 9 N. 0. . $2 *. -. o-n au 0. N I 00 In I con I oco I hN 8 0- : -. M. - - - - I sg z 82 coo 0000 In E : 0- 0- 0. In. 0- e- 9 0: b* 00 0 eo I 00 In %- 8 0- a0 Eo - I -In : M! r . : E% 8 7 2 b - 7 sg 2 om 5 hl 0000 In I- -1 9 0- k h, 0: 9 '0, In. N. g: O0O0 0. : a!! - '0, 9 s I M- In a n a0 0000 In uo a 3: g; 0000 0. -0 03 0. u -1 0. 0. b. b. 0: N 01 8 n. OIn 22 " z- 2. ox 22 z! I OInhN In W I aOSNC0 a aI "0, N I Inuc- 0. co In n w I > w 00 a- 2 I OInhN In I %EN" a n. I Inurr m e W I- I m- In u u v) U I az 1 , W , fn I I m m 0) wu) m mw L 8.- dm om c3 IC IO n. mw 0) cm IU m- I m .- 0 I- I-13 UU m w.-w IC >.4 L u wt--c U om- - I I - . 00- *! 0: '0. u (r n t 2 2 2 x ccm u ow 2 2: x 023- c, u) .z E::mCILmQ)m L u)+- QI 22 &I ? 2 g.:3.20 X x 53: m m A g;m c*wo n aJ 2 *- ma wu Z6ULeI- e .Edf 3 am m $2 x:muz3 alm&l>+. 0) vlOm C UQ v) m mx 4 In -u n. m;ce m -I- v) m v) 13 cu. z;2 m 0 - +.. c I \Ohmha0 mm1010 0.11 mmuobm -~IMI~ OII ma MulOIM*-zM*O 0 NI I Kk="S-""O-"; .. z- a-m-o-m-m-m- --ma: a,: M, o-II ul-Nul=(O, OlnlOi a II I um-z-s'o-~u 01 I *ch ~m - tInt2 NII I-lN -11 NUM I - I1 I I , N 11 I I I I 0, N IM 4.1 MmDIMU-MMIO s?Li!2!sifs ga:4:S 0. Ull 11 I a! II EmU-mm IO 85;!2628 ea:z:% %I! '4.'0,".99N?: -. 0 NI I K!-k-z#-S-zlb5!-s-R- i z 'D,M,o-M_o',o- --M-; m-; MI a-ii mc~m-m O~*OIM NII N*M -- - *mIM 0.11 I I I - II I -co-~-ua-:u I -0. - - :m I iriN IM N I I 'O,P--O.M,~-O- --M,; eo-; M, N-II m-~m-a O~~OIM 0.11 oom-0. 80. m: 8InnlP-l mu I-iN a-11 I - II - am N-M -- - F E. 0, oe NI I ~m-z--a--lrt I -0. I I I I I N em N: 01 MKnM*-MMIO OOM-0. s?k!2kif% !!!%:4:% RII in-Nmt-2 cm":;m In(! I N-M *:*E q 'o,M-o-M,o',o+- --MI; m,; M, 0.- II a ; ~h-','o,'O,~,'o,O-N, i ?- N IM I eaag-sa-~- I urn 150 I - II 1 a~rcmhao mm1010 mti o.muohm -~IMI~O a11 ~n-~m-m O~IOIM NII -1 0.MU-MM; 0 I -cou~-~a-;U 01 NI 0 I ?.E-G-S-5!.Z*E-Ki; E- '0.~.9?90: -.--: "0. : M! ?!I N-M -- - ;e;g z!; a I I a - II I I I F II I um N IM , I I 0, aolc~lcao mm1010 coli mm~o1cm -~IMB~O OII 'O,M-O-M-o',O- --MI; CO,; MI N-I1 m-~ul-m O~BOIM 0111 lmlM mII IFIN 0.11 NUM -- - I II 8; p2zL2zzzt2:o NI ,"~'o,'o.~!'o!9N!: E. I -~UN-U~-IU I ua c - ~m N IM I I I I I I I I aopc~~ao mm*o~o mii mmuorcm -~IMI'O UII 'o,M~o-MI~~-~- --M-; m,; M, m-it mc~m-a O~BOIM ~II N-M -- - Em*-zM g 0 E; ?I2 OOM 0.1 c, -~.'0.'0.~!'0.9-?: E. IullM NII I IFIN hII IM I u0. - - N I1 I +rn+~-ua-~- ~m I I I I I I I I W t e 2 ai ;E!p;%:3:z aaz-oo 0.-oamu mm -m:Kom ~h mii a11 d 2: -9N,--ho-: s 9p'- ,M.*-? -*?: 0:: -. e.!! oMau0.$ Eul :s:2 0.11 I I u I! 2 I I I 5 t; h: h N II I u~M~-=u-I I I-IN I -0. *R NMN 5 w N *M I- I I I Inln*U*U -11 2apGzs -mlhao mII $ ; m-m*U-Mph-e-% ; 0.. -?-a! .h.?O. --?: *-: ", 0.1; E 0.e -32Zkz"":" PC M-\ON100_ zm~\Dih 0.11 N I1 -N- W I M0.N- hM IM I I- c* I I1 w 1 1a;2 MII I NZ :? I 8 , B E s I I 3 a! ~ma-mmmN*m mom a\toF.RE gZ!S:S a uti I1 -- MI ; 'f, ; In* m I1 b. m. b- m. N, . - 11 hzm-mm OInlmnl- -11 I I ,E E;; :2 c mI momm\t~o I 01 z 0.1 m,~~u~N,UfS'o,~f:O~ W -1 I m0.-a m- la 1 NU F IInI - W I I I I II > W I n , W -1 rn I I I CI I r U v) 0 v) v) 0 *- v) a, v) 3 44 " 58 !! -1 2; 44 E $5 ri '$ fv) om W I UT mLmv)v)3 v) d - al E$ 5 : .E .," E xu on+ 0 €0 v) > 2 ? 42.- 0 d .- 0 2L E *s -2 v)m OLW a XI E, u 31 0 v) .I I- I-I u VI v, W 2&PZ$'= t ' 5v)$.?E5L? 2 -1; .3&$HI*~Lalcnv) - Uv)W - .-%m al+ 0 m U ._ ZW W OY- om Lm - v) - ma rL m .- I ral -a>o d 2.: xmv)v).-3 2 $ g 0 I-UU z b.2 9) g h E E; v)~r.-v)-v)v)m -1 WULal m a -u alLmL3rrT.- o -00.- '-moa m- -I 0 0 cu U*c* U wu g;co-mv)rmmr u ~C-L nLEcnI- u Y- nm me>amurnomuu I- v)u~uu~ax r 0 W .Is * ml 0-6 ???? OM g 06 mom- 0- M M 01 0-N 01 NI 0- 0 N 1 0 N 0 I s I I I oaa am??? OM e 9 mOM- g 2 M OgN 0 0 I e. 0 N .3: 08 ot N8 M N I F I I I I I oau3 ??'t.? OM f$ mom? z2 M OUN 0%- 0 N m: 8: I 0 N 0 M NI I I I I I s om 06 e Inom- 0- - M N: oaa a*??? 01 OgN 01 NI 1 0 M N 0 0 N 0. I 1 I I I 1 s ?I 0a.n ??-f? OM e mOM- z* 2 M 01 0-N 01 0- Nr 0 M 0 N 0 N I z I I I I e 0, 0 6 u3 6. 0. 3 0. OM mom- g 2 M 01 OUN 01 NI 0- 0 N 0 0 N 0 M I I I I s I om OM f$ z2 M M 066 '9o,:C? OZN 0 Inom- 8; z; 0 rn 0 N 0 N I % 8 I 8 I W I ni oco t- ON e. 0- N 0 0-6 OM m OI 06- a*?$o. - 0. IrIOM? OUN M 0- 0 N 0 3 co: g; zcc z 5 -I 0- W :E N 2 5 I s; r IO I- I I- 06 0 0 N In a6 oco 0 gF22 ???? M 0 mcoM- 0 N z 6: M- I 0. 8 0, W I I- = w z 3 n I Obb 0- N OM 0 m e. 0.3 z 0. 0 a0 OK!: ???? 5 8: zI2: mcom- M- N m e. 0. 0 0 w -1 0. IO IO IC (r ZI n 0 -I W I > t w I n I m a I m I d dm mru .r P) L Q - Q d 5 z d n m U a, Q VY 0 VY 0 0x0 0 0 @Jwu I .rUL a, 00 IC n :-3 -m mwv .r m L d -I v) I.+ 00 I 01 I i= V i > v)z 2: c = E .E 01 * Wv) V 1w r m i E c w m mv) P) 0 I.ww 0mP)v) f z < 3; u. CII 0 0 -* V v)v) c E: u 2 I-, rwr &I cc $,Z 55 $5 5 0 5 -2 5 5 ,?.Z 2 ,E v) K A .C .C .- P, g .- .E y: ma 31, arm - I-LL nbu ;c .t --I n:-gE? ZgEe K'ZUZ g;g{g 5ii d 2 Zv22 oczcce m~uau #vu o V n %%22 ox an 2: K$v,a,a V nc aa 0 w r. - - n I om Oh NO M -0 0 ON In- mI 0000 M 01 00 0 0 N o 9 o- 9 I OM M u I 0- - O. '4- In h* I m, N : R? R M ?g 8 Oh 9 '0. In k In? - *! N : 82 2 u c- K! fg 7 I om m u -- R m I I om u* 0000 M 8: O0 O 0 E8? "E NI 0- 9 0. r=. I OM M u .. e. N I MN ltl In I Nr M M I NO M -0 0 0- 0 '4, Eg 8 8 8- E!. 9 '0, In h- F m: 0000 R : 9 9 0- * 01 00 0 mCi I OM M u 03, N R 8K! - 00, N o 8- 2- 2 .J - m : R? g M I NO M 70 0 ON m- m Ne 0000 01 .a fig s: 1 OM M u o 8- 2- 2 u - R ZK! ke. a!! N R 8K! z:? Ee. a?! N R 28 s 8K Ink h- m I *- N I 0- -- - R 2 mo 0000 go O0 O z -1 2 2 E roo - -I ...- 9 *. Kro c I m. 0- m u- 4 = roo 0000 I- 0.1 0000 5 B E: O."!P',N, m 0. N! E'O I 0e.e.co R I m- 0- m u- E 5 s s : E2 K M I I NO M -0 0 ON m- m -1 0000 M 01 00 0 0, 00 0 NI .. 0. '0- *- 2 I c. I OM M u I om c I or 2 u o Re R M .. I NO M -0 0 01 0000 01 N8 01 00 0 s: 0. 0. 0. h- 0. '0, v? ; I OM M * I om 9) u I 0.- c c -. m o RCi R M I I 0000 M !2 c, i 8- 8- 8- K- 0. 9 he. ON m- I om M u *om m u I MN m m I N- M M - I u I PL 0. 0. 0. . 28 0- 8 '0, E E- Ea : ON mr m E! N I OM M * c I om r W c IO+- 2 u : RCi R M .. N I oco mm me. 5 E; EgEE k 00 h- M. !s!! P ;=, M! !s!- 2 W I 0-roc0 M I I OoIolCO N 0: w m E 2 I -ro z IC i om m (Ob uo - om I 0-rom m : -ro 2 I- W > W I w I -! n I t I I I- I .- fn m I a 3 C fn W u 0 afn 3 0 -1 -1 < 0 I- c13v u am ma c3 a CUI 7 0 aa 2 LL :.q Ir d m ma am 2 5.5: 'r. 5% L *E "Z'X<Z ; 2%; g 5; ; LIE xo fnvu3 Lfn x m r om .- 3 m 2 E.i 22;g r -Inm u) fn ma CY# rod 2s s:$fk# B *g&z *; fn u)x am - m n fnza m -c v) m v) 3 cu. 2:!2 m . 0 e f.r ' s Table 7. PUBLIC FACILITIES TO BE FINANCED BY THE DEVELOPER OF ZONE 23 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN b Estimated Cost C11 Drainage Facilities $800,000 Circulation Facilities Intersection of El Camino Real and Calle Barcelona 50,000 Intersection of EL Camino Real and Levante St. 50,000 Add Southbound Lane to El Camino Real Between La 920,000 Costa Ave. and Southern Boundary of the City Add Southbound Lane to El Camino Real Between Alga Rd. and La Costa Ave. 500,000 C21 Sewer Facilities 290,000 Water Facilities 560,000 ------------ Total All Facilities $3,170,000 ------------ ------------ Total Excluding El Camino Real Widening Between $2,670,000 Alga Rd. and La Costa Ave. ------------ ------------ Source: Local Facilities Management Plan and Facilities Financing Plan 1. Cost data from Zone 23 LFM Plan. 2. One-half of the estimated cost; currently not included in the major for Zone 23. infrastructure budget of the proposed master plan project. < - 1 0 TI - i I Table 8. RECENT LAND SALES OF GRADED LOTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF VOLUME RETAIL STORES IN SAN DIEGO Recording Land Area Date Buyer Location (Ac.) Sales Price Price/Acre 6/92 Mervyn's San Diego 6.8 $2,729,000 $402,982 8/92 costco San Diego 11.5 $8,299,500 $721,758 4/93 Home Depot Chula Vista 13.5 $4,384,000 $325,705 6/93 K-Mart Chula Vista 14.1 85,061,554 $358,466 6/93 Price Club Chula Vista 15.6 $4,454,500 $285,179 9/94 K-Mart San Diego 9.1 $6,580,000 $719,912 ........................................................................................ Average Land Price 111 $446,297 Median Land Price $380,724 -----_-- ____-_-- Source: Comps. 1. Ueighted average. C e m ?.- * - 1 2 JUN ONAKA, Ph.D. Principal ONAKA PLANNING & ECONOMICS Encinitas, California With over 23 years of experience, Dr. Onaka provides consultation services in the fields of economic and fiscal impact studies and financing of public services, infrastructure development, and open space acquisition. Current Projects . = = = Fiscal impact study of Heber Ranch specific plan, a 600-acre multi-use development plan in Imperial County, California. Economic impact analysis of alternative water quality management programs for Salton Sea, Imperial County, California, for Salton Sea Authority. Socioeconomic impact study of proposed state correctional facility in San Diego County, California, prepared for California Department of Corrections. Socioeconomic impact and growth inducement study of SR 56, prepared for the City of San Diego and California Department of Transportation, District 11. Implementation and financing plan for the City of San Diego’s 164,000-acre Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). Implementation and financing plan and land value and urbanization analyses for the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), sponsored by a consortium of local agencies in north San Diego County and managed by the San Diego Association of Governments. Socioeconomic impact study of electric transmission line from Lucerne Valley to Big Bear Valley in San Bernardino County, CA, for Bear Valley Electric and Southern California Edison. Recent Projects = Socioeconomic impact study of proposed state correctional facility in Delano, Kern County, California, prepared for California Department of Corrections. Fiscal impact study of a 200,000-sq.ft., volume-retail, commercial redevelopment in the City of Chula Vista, California, prepared for the City of Chula Vista, Department of Community Development. Implemntztion md finmcing plm for the City of Carlsbad’s 5,500-acre Habitat Management Plan. Socioeconomic impact and growth inducement study of SR 76 from the City of Oceanside to Interstate 15 in north San Diego County, prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 1 1. Feasibility study of a $7,800,000, 1913/1915 Act assessment district for Avenida Encinas in Carlsbad, CA. Fiscal impact study of Camino Village, a 63,000-sq. ft. neighborhood shopping center located in Carlsbad, CA. Fiscal impact study of Poinsettia Shores, a 163-acre planned residential and visitor commercial development in Carlsbad, CA. Master plan and project financial feasibility study for Hana Ranch and Hotel Hana Maui, a 5,400-acre resort community in Maui County, HI. Fiscal impact study of Aviara Master Plan Amendment, a 1,40O-acre, 2,002-unit residential, resort hotel, and golf course project in Carlsbad, CA. . = [R5119JO.WP] < 0 e T, T * rs i* JUN ONAKA, Ph.D. Page 2 = . . . = = . . . 9 Feasibility study for a $28,700,000, 1913/1915 Act assessment district for construction of Melrose Avenue south of Palomar Airport Road in Carlsbad, CA. Assessment engineering for the City of San Diego Assessment District No. 4070 ($5,900,000 bond issue) for Black Mountain Road in San Diego, CA. Fiscal impact study of Sambi residential project, a 69-acre, 340-unit planned residential development in Carlsbad, CA. Socioeconomic impact and growth inducement study of SR 125/54, prepared for the California Department of Transportation, District 11. Fiscal impact study of The Villages of La Costa, a 480-acre, 1,000-unit planned residential development in Carlsbad, CA. Feasibility studies for the Carlsbad Unified School District Community Facilities District No. 1 ($12,175,000 bond issue) for Alga Road School in Carlsbad, CA. Feasibility studies for the acquisition and construction of Alga Road and Poinsettia Lane, for the City of Carlsbad Assessment District No. 88-1 ($21,000,000 bond issue). Facilities financing plans for five local facilities management zones in Carlsbad, CA. Fiscal impact studies of the City of Chula Vista's redevelopment agency on amending the boundary of the Chula Vista Auto Park. Feasibility study of Mira Mesa Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District special assessment zone (Black Mountain Road and Mercy Road) in San Diego, CA. Growth inducement study on SR 54 (South Bay Freeway) for the California Department of Transportation and San Diego Association of Governments. Fiscal impact study of General Plan Update for the City of Chula Vista. Fiscal impact study of Pins Ranch Specific Plan in Camarillo, CA. Economic analyses including annexation studies, project financial analyses, infrastructure, public services planning, and development scheduling of Banning-Lewis Ranch, a 22,000-acre new town in Colorado Springs, CO. Master plan and financial feasibility study of Superstition Springs, a 1,650-acre residential and commercial development located in Mesa, AZ. Cost-benefit analyses of the proposed major access road, flight test engineering facility, and management facility at Edwards Air Force Base, Kern County, CA. Parcel database management system and financial analysis model for The Ontario Center, a 600- acre residential, commercial, and industrial development located in Ontario, CA. Application for Certification to the California Energy Commission for San Diego Energy Recovery (SANDER) Project, a 2,250-tons per day, 67-megawatt, municipal solid waste-to- energy facility in San Diego, CA. Application for Certification to the California Energy Commission for Irwindale Resource Recovery Facility, a 3,150-tons per day, 95-megawatt, municipal solid waste-to-energy facility in Irwindale, CA. Master plan of Batam Center, the principal town of Batam Island, prepared for the Batam Industrial Development Authority, Republic of Indonesia. Regional plan and master plans for five principal cities of Asir Region, prepared for the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. . . = . . = . Professional History Onaka Planning '& Economics, Encinitas, CA - Principal - 1991 -Present P&D Technologies, San Diego, CA - Senior Project Manager - 1983-1991 [R5119JO.WP] c ir 0 a E JUN ONAKA, Ph.D. Page 3 Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA - Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional Planning Kenzo Tange and URTEC, Tokyo, Japan - Urban Planner - 1973-1975, 1977 Education Ph.D., Urban Planning, University of California at Los Angeles (1980) M.Arch, Architecture, Harvard Graduate School of Design (1972) A.B. (Magna Cum Laude), Mathematics and Economics, Harvard College (1969) - 1980-1983 [R5119JO.WP] C v Ibfl $9 7 c; my __ $-L 6 - 4 r (p-y &nQJ &+Y 2f &+/ CY&< 9% rn CARLSBAD PARTNEREs~fiTb. 2364 Thanksgiving Towcrr 1601 Elm Itroot Dalh8, Taxa8 75241 214/979-9071 H 214/754-9018 FAX VIA FAX February 21, 1995 Members of the City Council City of Carlabad 1200 Carlsbad Villagr Drive Carlabad, California 92008-1989 bear Council MemberB: We have reviewed ths etafP repork on the Green Valley Initiative, the ind6~end8nk review af the project: and the staff recemmendatlon, recommendation to defer your decisien until the California supreme court decimian on the Devita case is a reasonable courm of action, and we Bupport the recommendation. Very truly yours, We concur with the analysis an& believe the a&- 7’ Allen D. Farris for Carlsbad Partnora Ltd.