HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - OB-2 - Review of Agency Report Initiative Petit - 4/5/2016CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: OB -2
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AGENCY REPORT ON INITIATIVE PETITION QUALIFYING
FOR BALLOT; CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING A NEW ORDINANCE;
SUBMISSION OF AN INITIATIVE TO THE NOVEMBER 8, 2016 BALLOT
DATE: MARCH 25, 2016
FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE; CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
PRESENTATION BY: BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK;
TARQUIN PREZIOSI, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK, 714-754-5225
At the March 15, 2016 City Council meeting, the City Council ordered a report pursuant to
Election Code section 9212 for one qualifying ballot initiative entitled, "An Initiative To
Require Voter Approval On Certain Development Projects". The report is attached for
City Council consideration (Attachment 3).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt the ordinance, without alteration; or
2. Order placement of the measure on the November 8, 2016 consolidated
municipal election. Resolutions calling for a consolidated municipal election, and
submission of the measure to the ballot, to be adopted at the June 7, 2016 City
Council meeting; and
3. Consider providing Staff with direction as to the preparation of an alternative
measure.
BACKGROUND:
The procedures for placing an initiative to enact an ordinance on the ballot are set forth
in California Election Code sections 9200-9226.
On June 29, 2015 the City of Costa Mesa, City Clerk, received a voter initiative petition
by its proponents (Proponents) "To Require Voter Approval On Certain Development
Projects" (Attachment 1). As required by the California Elections Code, the City
Attorney's Office provided a title and summary (Attachment 2).
1
The Proponents of the initiative published the Notice of Intent to Circulate and were
legally permitted to circulate the petition June 17, 2015 to January 6, 2016. The petition
required 4,995 valid signatures to qualify for the 2016 General Election ballot.
On January 4, 2016, the Proponents of the initiative petition filed the signed petitions.
The City Clerk conducted a prima facie review and determined there was a sufficient
number of signatures to proceed: 6908 total tally. On January 5, 2016, the petition was
delivered to the County of Orange Registrar of Voters Office for signature verification.
The Orange County Registrar of Voters examined the records of voter registration for
the City of Costa Mesa and determined that the initiative petition had been signed by no
less than 10 percent of City of Costa Mesa registered voters. Therefore the initiative
petition was sufficient to be certified to the City Council.
On March 15, 2016 City Council accepted the Certification and ordered a report
pursuant to Elections Code section 9212. Elections Code section 9212 ["Referral of
proposed initiative measure to city agency for report"] provides that the City Council
may refer the proposed initiative measure to any city agency or agencies for a report on
any matter the City Council requests to be in the report. City staff has retained the
services of Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.to prepare the Elections Code section 9212
report.
FISCAL REVIEW:
The estimated costs to add the initiative to the consolidated general election is
$10,000.00.
The estimated cost for Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. to prepare a financial analysis
of the potential impact of the Initiative is $28,000.00.
The estimated cost to retain outside counsel to prepare an alternative measure is
between $10,000.00 and $20,000.00.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney's office has reviewed this report and has approved it as to form and
legal content.
TARQUIN PREZIOSI
Deputy City Attorney
RICHARD FRANCIS
Assistant CEO
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Petition
2. Ballot Title & Summary
3. Report
2
BRENDA GREEN
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 1
INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS
"An Initiative to give the People of Costa Mesa control of their future."
To the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa:
We, the undersigned, registered and qualified voters of the State of California, residents of the
City of Costa Mesa, pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance XI of the California Constitution and
Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 34450) of Pact 1 of Division 2 of Title 4 of the
Government Code, present to the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa this petition and
request that the following proposed ordinance be submitted to the registered and qualified voters
of the City of Costa Mesa for their adoption or rejection at an election on a date to be determined
by the Costa Mesa City Council, We further request the Costa Mesa City Council place this
amendment on the ballot pursuant to the California State Election Code 9200-9226.
The proposed amendment reads as follows:
The people of the Costa Mesa find that:
(a) Environmental quality in Costa Mesa, which directly affects the quality of life of its
residents, workers and visitors, is significantly and adversely impacted by excessive
development, which causes severe traffic congestion and gridlock, degradation of Costa
Mesa's infrastructure, as well as air, noise and water pollution;
(b) Costa Mesa's traffic circUlation system is already oversaturated, Several intersections are
operating at or near failure during peals traffic hours Enid are inadequate to support
existing development;
(c) Fiutherniore, these existing traffic and traffic circulation system conditions result in
adverse effects on public safety, public health and our quality of life;
(d) hicreased population density and overall population have stressed Costa Mesa's parks
and other public facilities and services resulting in adverse effects on public well-being;
(e) The City of Costa Mesa's existing land use and development review and approval
procedures do not carefully or accurately consider, nor adequately weigh, the adverse
impacts to the local environment and quality of life caused by increased density and
congestion resulting from major changes in allowable land use;
(t) The standards by which the City of Costa Mesa evaluates maj or changes in allowable
land use are ill-defined and inadequate to avoid or effectively mitigate the adverse effects
of those changes; and
page 1
Initiative to give the People Of Costa Mesa control of their future—FINAL 6/29/2015
(g) The People of Costa Mesa, whose quality of life and property rights are at stake, should
have the power to decide whether a proposed Major Change in Allowable Land Use, as
defined below, is worth the added congestion and density it will cause, after careful,
independent evaluation by the City of Costa Mesa of the adverse environmental effects of
Major Changes in Allowable Land Use, based on clear and consistently applied
standards.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Sec._1. Code Amendment.
This ordinance amends the Costa Mesa Municipal Code as follows and supersedes any
provisions that are inconsistent with this ordinance and shall be known as "Ordinance to give the
People of Costa Mesa control of their future",
Sec. -2. Purpose.
It is the purpose of this ordinance to:
(a) Give the voters of Costa Mesa the power to determine whether Costa Mesa should
allow Major Changes in Allowable Land Use, as defined below, by requiring voter
approval of any such proposed change and thereby ensuring maximum public
participation in major land use and zoning changes proposed in Costa Mesa;
(b) Ensure that the voters of Costa Mesa receive all necessary and accurate environmental
information on proposals for Major Changes in Allowable .Land Use, so that they shall
intelligently vote on any such proposal;
(c) Ensure that Costa Mesa officials provide timely, accurate arid unbiased environmental
review of all proposals for Major Changes in Allowable Land Use, so that they may
minimize or mitigate their adverse traffic and land use impacts and maximize
neighborhood compatibility before the voters decide on any such change;
(d) Ensure that all elements of the land use change approved by the voters are
implemented; and
(e) Protect the public health, safety and welfare, and the quality of life, for all persons
living or wonting or visiting in Costa Mesa,
Sec. -3. Definitions.
The definitions set forth in this section apply to the provisions of this ordinance only and do not
Initiative to give the People of Costa Mesa control of thelrfuture--FINAL 6/29/2015 page 2
affect any other provision of law.
(a) "As -Built Condition" means the dwelling units, office and other nonresidential units,
buildings and baseline traffic conditions existing at the time Costa Mesa issues the
notice of preparation of an environmental impact report for the Major Change in
Allowable Land Use, or, where no such notice is issued, on the date the application for
the Major Change in Allowable Land Use is deemed complete. Illegal dwellings and
other conditions that exist in violation of Costa Mesa's zoning ordinance and are
subject to Costa Mesa's power of abatement, shall not be accounted for in the As -Built
Condition for the purpose of determining a "Significant Increase," as defined in
subdivision (h) below.
(b) "Average Daily Trips" means the number of vehicle hips that a Major Change in
Allowable Land Use would generate on a daily basis. Trips generated shall be
calculated by using the most recent version of the Trip Generation Manual of the
Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE") in effect on the date the City of Costa
Mesa issues the notice of preparation of an environmental impact report for a Major
Change in AIlowable Land Use or, where no such notice is issued, on the date the
application for the Major Change in Allowable Land Use is deemed complete. Further,
a Daily Trip is a motor vehicle either leaving or arriving at said property during a given
day. Also, for purposes of counting trips, any vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating (GVWR) greater than 6,000 (six thousand) pounds, shall be counted as
generating two (2) trips for every trip attributed to this sized vehicle.
(c) "General Ilan" means the General Plan of the City of Costa Mesa in effect as of the
effective date of this ordinance, or as may be amended pursuant to this ordinance.
(d) "Intersection Capacity Utilization" or "ICU" means a quantitative measure of traffic
flow of an intersection that includes critical turning movement volume/capacity (v/O)
ratios. ICU is related to Level of Service (below) and augments the determination of
LOS, An ICU of "1,00" is indicative of an intersection that is at maximum capacity.
(c) "Level of Service" or "LOS" means a scale that measures the amount of traffic that a
roadway or intersection can accommodate, based on Che ICU of the intersection and
such factors as maneuverability, driver dissatisfaction, and delay.
(f) "Major Change in Allowable Land Use" mcans any proposed aniendrnent, change, or
replacement of the General .Plan, or of Costa Mesa's zoning ordinance (as defined and
contained in Title 13, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code) or any Specific Plan or
Overlay Plan or adoption of a new Specific Plan or Overlay Pian meeting any one or
more of the following conditions:
page 3
Initiative to glue the People Of Costa Mesa control of their future --FINAL 6/29/2015
(1) The proposed change in allowable land use would significantly increase traffic,
density or intensity of use above the As -Built condition, as defined in (ls), in
the neighborhood where the major change is proposed.
(2) The proposed change in allowable land use would change a public use to a
private use. A Major Change in Allowable Land Use in this category shall
include a change of use on;
(i) land designated for a public use or a public right-of-way;
provided, however, that the abandorunent of a public right of way that is
no longer needed, in conformity to the procedural requirements of the
Government Code of the State of California, Section 65402 and the
Municipal Code of the City of Costa Mesa, shall not be subject to voter
approval.
(3) land designated as utility right-of-way;
(4) land donated, bequeathed or otherwise granted to Costa Mesa;
(5) land used or designated for Costa Mesa school property; or
(6) land owned, controlled or managed by Costa Mesa;
(g) "Minor Change in Allowable Land Use" means any change inland use that does not
meet or exceed the changes as defined in Major Change in Allowable Land Use, as
defined in (f).
(h) "Municipal Code" 01'"Costa Mesa Municipal Code" means the Municipal Code of
the City of Costa Mesa.
(i) G°Overlay Plan" or "Overlay Zone" mean the same and refer to any zoning code plan
covering a currently zoned area of the city that allows a land owner to change from that
zone to another to further develop that owner's property. Said Overlay Zone would
include certain restrictions or incentives to increase the likelihood of a property
owner's desire to develop their property affected by the Overlay Zone.
(j) "Proponent" means any individual, firm, association, syndicate, partnership, limited
liability company, limited Liability partnership, corporation, trust or any other legal
entity applying to Costa Mesa for a change in allowable land use. If Costa Mesa itself
initiates the change, it shall be deemed the Proponent for the purposes of this
ordinance.
page 4
Initiative tc give the People Of Costa Mesa control of their future --FINAL 6/29/2015
(k) "Significantly Increase" or "Significant Increase" means any one or more of the
following increases over or changes compared to the As -Built Condition:
(1) The traffic generated by the proposal:
(i) would generate more than 200 additional Average Daily Trip ends; or
(ii) would increase the V/C ratio of the intersection operating condition in one
of the following ways:
a. would increase the V/C ratio to equal to or greater than 0,040
such that after implementation of the major change the LOS
would be C or worse;
b, would increase the V/C ratio increase to equal to or greater than
0.020 such that after implementation of the major change the
LOS would be D or worse; or
c, would increase the V/C ratio to equal to or greater than 0.010
such that after implementation of the major change the LOS
would be E or F or ICU of 0.9 or higher; or
(iii) any increase in ICU at any Costa Mesa intersection from less than 0.9 to
0.9 or higher; or any change in LOS at any intersection or on any corridor
from better than "D" to "D" or worse,
(2) For purposes of determining traffic increases attributable to a Major Change in
Allowable Land Use, baseline and projected ICU and LOS conditions shall be
determined considering weekday peals hour conditions at such time of Elie year
when. local public schools are in session.
(3) The density increase generated by the proposal produces more than forty (40)
additional residential dwelling emits than As -Built conditions.
(4) The intensity of use generated by the project produces more than ten thousand
(10,000) additional square feet of retail, office or other nonresidential floor
area than As -Built conditions.
(5) The voters declare that dividing a Major Change in Allowable Land Use, that
would otherwise require their approval, into partial changes that would not by
themselves require their approval obviates their intent to have control over
major changes in allowable land use and is contrary to the purposes of this
ordinance. For the purposes of this ordinance, a "significant increase" occurs if
the combination of a proposed minor change in allowable land use with one or
more other minor or major changes in allowable land use within a half mile
which were approved within eight (8) years preceding issuance of the notice of
Initlative to give the People Of Costa Mesa control ofthetr future --FINAL 6/29/2015 page 5
preparation of an environmental impact report or other environmental review
doctnnent for the proposed minor change, or, where no such notice is issued,
within eight (8) years preceding commencement of the City's environmental
analysis for the proposed minor change, meets any increase or change
threshold for traffic, density or intensity of use defined in this ordinance,
(1) "Specific PIan" means any existing Specific Plan in effect as of January 1, 2015 or any
Specific Plans as may be amended pursuant to this ordinance or any new Specific Plans
which shall be approved by both the Costa Mesa City Council as well as the voters of
Costa Mesa pursuant to this ordinance,
Sec. -4. Effective date; Applicability.
(a) This ordinance shall be binding and effective as of the earliest date allowed by law (the
"Effective Date"). At its first public meeting following completion of the canvass of
votes, the Costa Mesa City Council shall pass the resolution required by Elections
Code Section 9266. The following day, the elections official of Costa Mesa shall cause
a copy of the complete text of the adopted measure to be filed with the Secretary of
State pursuant to Government Code Sections 34459 and 34460.
(b) Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9205, all Major Changes in Allowable Land Use
approved by the Costa Mesa City Council on or after the date of publication of the
notice of intention to circulate the initiative petition adding this ordinance to the City
Municipal Code, shall be subject to the provisions of this ordinance.
See. _5. Vote of the Costa Mesa Electorate on a Major Change in an Allowable Land
Use.
(a) Each Major Change in Allowable Land Use shall be put to a vote of the Costa Mesa
electorate; provided, however, that no such change shall be submitted to the Costa
Mesa electorate tmless the Costa Mesa City Council has first approved the change
pursuant to all state and local laws applicable to approval of land use changes by the
legislative body. A Major Change in Allowable Land Use shall become effective only
after approval by the Costa Mesa City Council and a majority of the Costa Mesa
Electorate voting "YES" on a ballot measure proposing such change at either a regular
or special municipal election. An advisory election does not satisfy the voter approval
requirement.
(b) The sample ballot materials mauled to the registered voters of Costa Mesa prior to all
election shall describe any Major Change in Allowable Land Use in a manner that
clearly discloses both the scope and main features of the proposal (including any and
all phases) that the Major Change in Allowable Land Use consists of or depends on,
and the location and the acreage of the project site. The description shall include the
page 6
Initiative to glve the People Of Costa Mesa control of their future --FINAL 6/29/2015
text of any proposed amendment to the General Plan, to Costa Mesa's zoning
ordinance or of any proposed adoption or repeal of, or amendment to, a Specific Plan.
The description shall clearly compare the proposal and its traffic impacts both to the
As -Built Condition and to existing applicable land use designations and zoning
classifications, providing accurate comparative data conceiving existing as well as
proposed densities (in units per acre) and intensities of use (in square footage, types of
use and traffic impacts). If a site -speck development is proposed in connection with a
Major Change in Allowable Land Use, and existing densities or intensities of use in
such site-specific development are less than the densities or intensities the Major
Change in Allowable Land use proposes, the text of the ballot shall clearly disclose the
maximum total residential, commercial, industrial or other nonresidential build -out
potential, and traffic impacts under build -out, compared to the As -Built Condition,
Easily readable maps shall be used to assist the voters in the proposal description. All
of the information called for by this subdivision shall be posted on Costa Mesa's
website no later than ten (10) days prior to the Costa Mesa City Council's action on a
Major Change in Allowable Land Use, and such information shall be updated no later
than two business days following the Costa Mesa City Council's action.
(c) For all Major Changes in Allowable Land Use approved by the Costa Mesa City
Council on or after the effective date of this ordinance, the resulting election required
by this ordinance shall be set for the first regular municipal election following City
Council approval of the Major Change in Allowable Land Use; or, by mutual
agreement with the Proponent, the Costa Mesa City Council may call a special
municipal election, with the cost of the special election borne solely by the Proponent.
(d) The popular vote required by this ordinance shall be in addition to all other applicable
review and approval requirements for such Major Change in Allowable Land Use,
including environmental review in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA").
(e) All subsequent City permits and approvals necessary to implement all or part of a
Major Change in Allowable Land Use shall coiiforiv to the voter -approved change.
Under no circumstances shall any subsequent permit or approval authorize, allow or
otherwise accommodate higher densities, intensities of use, or trip generation than the
densities, intensities and trip generation approved by the Costa Mesa City Council and
the voters.
(f) No certificate of occupancy for any structure built as part of a proposal that depends
on a Major Change in Allowable Land Use shall be issued until:
(1) All mitigations of traffic impacts, including control signals, increases in right-
of-way
ight-
ofway capacity via widening roads, or other right-of-way or intersection
improvements, as may be required by the Costa Mesa City Council, have been
page 7
Initiative to give the People Of Costa Mesa control oftheir future --FINAL 6/29/2015
developed and implemented, and the City Engineer has certified completion
and operation of all traffic impact mitigations in full compliance with the Costa
Mesa City Council's approval action; or
(2) Costa Mesa has received payment of the then current trip fees and a fully
enforceable agreement between Costa Mesa and the Proponent specifying any
other considerations to implement the appropriate mitigation measures.
(g) Except as provided in Section 6, Paragraph (b) below, any permits or approvals issued
without voter approval, where such voter approval is required under this ordinance,
shall be mill and void,
Sec. -6. Application for Major Change in Allowable Land Use; City Review.
(a) To carry out the purposes of this ordinance, any application for a Major Change in
Allowable Land Use shall contain accurate and up-to-date factual data and information,
and the subsequent written City review shall include the following (in addition to all
other disclosures required under CEQA and Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal
Code):
(1) The information required by Section -5, subdivision (b), above;
(2) A site plan or diagram, drawn to scale for any site specific amendment;
(3) A complete, objective discussion of the potential inconsistencies between the
proposal that consists of, or depends on, the Major Change in Allowable Land
Use, and:
(i) surrounding uses in the neighborhood;
(ii) the General Plan;
(iii) the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances; and
(iv) any applicable Specific Plan or Overlay Plan.
(4) To the extent the proposal differs from existing uses, a fiill description of the
mitigations necessary or recommended for adoption to minimize neighborhood
impacts and incompatibility shall be provided.
(b) A complete, objective analysis of the traffic circulation and traffic safety impacts of the
proposal that consists of, or depends on, the Major Change in Allowable Land Use.
The traffic analysis shall be prepared directly by, or under direct contract to, the City,
page S
Initiative to give the People Of Costa Mesa control of their future --FINAL 6/29/2015
and shall make accurate determinations for the purposes of Section i3, subdivision
(b)(1), above. ICU and LOS impact analysis shall be provided for all corridors and
intersections subject to any significant impacts due to the Major Change in Allowable
Land Use. LOS analyses shall use current best practices described in the current
Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board, a division
of the National Research Coutwil, The traffic analysis shall adequately disclose the
direct, the indirect or secondary, and the cumulative impacts of the proposal accounting
for all relevant factors, such as proportion of heavy weight vehicular traffic, bus stops,
intersection and corridor oversaturation (downstream traffic queuing impacts),
pedestrian traffic, side street and driveway entrances and exits, ingress stacking and
overflowing, and turn lane queuing and overflow. The traffic analysis also shall
identify the mitigations necessary or recommended to reduce the traffic impacts to an
ICU below 0.90 or LOS D or better for the corridors and intersections subj ect to this
analysis. The location, nature and adverse construction -phase impacts of the traffic
impact mitigations shall be clearly described.
(c) To reduce delay for Proponents, the City's decision-making bodies may review and
conditionally approve discretionary permit applications required for a proposal prior to
the Costa Mesa electorate's vote on a Major Change in Allowable Land Use on which
such proposal depends; provided, however, that no conditional permit approval will
become effective unless the related Major Change in Allowable Land Use is passed by
the voters and has itself become effective. If the related Major Change in Allowable
Land Use is rejected by the voters, such change and all conditional permits shall have
no force and effect.
Sec. -7. Exceptions.
(a) This ordinance shall not apply to any Major Change in Allowable Land Use that is
limited to allowing the development of a public school or a hospital.
(b) This ordinance shall not preclude completion of a site-specific development that
depends on a Major Change in Allowable Land Use approved before the effective date
of this ordinance, if before such date, the holder of any permit or other entitlement for
use for such development has lawfully and in -good faith acquired a vested right, under
state .law, to carry out the development to completion.
(c) The provisions of this ordnance shall not apply to the extent that they would violate
state or federal laws.
(d) This ordinance shall not be applied in a manner that would result in aur unconstitutional
taking of private property.
page 9
Initiative to give the People Of Costa Mesa control of their future --FINAL 6/29/2015
(e) This ordinance shall not apply to affordable housing proposals required by state or
federal law,
(f) This ordinance shall not apply to any Major Change in Allowable Land Use of
property with legal non -conforming residential units that were occupied on the date of
publication, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9205, of the notice of intention to
circulate the initiative petition adding this ordinance to the Municipal Code, so long as
the proposed change in allowable land use meets all the following conditions;
(1) the existing residential units are rendered conforming under the proposed
change;
(2) the proposed change does not allow an increase in the number of residential
units on the property;
(3) the proposed change does not create a Significant Increase in traffic or
intensity of use; and
(4) the proposed change does not create a reduction in open space or in any set
back.
See. 8. Relationship to Municipal Code.
If any provision of this ordinance conflicts with other provisions contained in the Costa Mesa
Municipal Code, the provisions of this ordinance shall supersede any other conflicting provision,
Sec. -9. Amendments.
No provision of this ordinance may be amended or repealed except by a vote of the people of
Costa Mesa.
See._10. Judicial Enforcement,
Any aggrieved person shall have the right to bring an action to enjoin any violation of this
ordinance or to enforce the duties imposed on Costa Mesa by this ordinance,
Sec.—H. Construction.
This ordinance shall be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes. Nothing herein shall be
construed to matte illegal any lawful use being made of any land iu accordance "vith City land
use and zoning regulations in force before the effective date of this ordinance.
Sec. -12. Consistency with Other Ballot Measures.
If another ballot measure is placed on the same ballot as this measure and deals with the same,
subject matter, and if both measures pass, the voters intend that both measures stroll be put into
page 10
Initiative to give the People Of Costa Mesa control of their future --FINAL 6/29/2015
effect, except to the extent that specific provisions of the measures are in direct conflict. In the
event of a direct conflict, the measure which obtained more votes will control as to the directly
conflicting provisions only. The voters expressly declare this to be their intent, regardless of any
contrary language in any other ballot measure.
Sec. -13. Severability,
If any section„ subdivision,clause, sentence, phrase or portion of this ordinvlce is declared
invalid by a court of coaupetent jurisdiction, the remaining sections, subdivisions, clauses,
sentences, phrases and portions shall remain valid and enforceable. The voters declare that they
would have passed all sections, subdivisions, clatises, sentences, phrases and portions of this
ordinance without the section, subdivision, clause, sentence, phrase or portion declared invalid
by a court Of competent jurisdiction.
Initiative to give the People Of Costa Mesa control of their future --FINAL 6/29/2015 page 11
N
C:D
.,r
rr2
7
1
it
_
U
cr)
�rry
�
ra
r
u�
to
Initiative to give the People Of Costa Mesa control of their future --FINAL 6/29/2015 page 11
ATTACHMENT 2
AN INITIATIVE TO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL ON
CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The initiative would amend the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code to require voter
approval on certain development projects that meet the following criteria:
1. The proposed project would require adoption, amendment, change or replacement of
the Costa Mesa General Plan ("General Plan"), municipal code, specific plan, or overlay
plan; AND
2. The proposed project meets a minimum of one of the following:
A, Would involve any one of the following changes:
i. Generate more than 200 additional Average Daily Trips,
ii. Increase the volume/capacity of an intersection based on a specified
formula,
iii. Change the Intersection Capacity Utilization or level of service based on a
specified formula,
iv. Add 40 or more dwelling units,
V. Add 10,000 square feet of retail, office or other nonresidential, or
vi. The proposed project, combined with other projects, within 8 years and a
half -mile of each other, meets this criteria;
B. Changes a public use to a private use under specified circumstances;
C, Involves land designated as utility right-of-way under specified circumstances;
D. Involves land donated, bequeathed or otherwise granted to Costa Mesa;
E, Involves land used or designated for Costa Mesa school property; or
F, Involves land owned, controlled or managed by Costa Mesa,
According to the initiative, an application submitted by a proponent of a development
project that is subject to voter approval must provide a site plan with the location, size
and main features of the project; the text proposed for the General Plan, municipal code,
specific plan or overlay plan; comparisons of traffic, density and intensity; potential
inconsistencies between the development project and the surrounding uses in the
neighborhood, General Plan, municipal code, and applicable specific plan or, overlay
plan; and traffic circulation and traffic safety impacts.
Any development project subject to the initiative and adopted by the City Council
would not tal<e effect until approved by a majority of the Costa Mesa electorate at the
first regular municipal election. However, the development project may be submitted to
voters at a special municipal election if, by mutual agreement with the City Council, the
proponent agrees to pay the cost of the special municipal election. The initiative
requires specific information within the sample ballot including the information
provided in the application. The initiative would allow the City to conditionally
approve discretionary permits related to the development project prior to receiving
voter approval.
Voter approval would not be required on development projects for a public school or
hospital; projects approved before the initiative's effective date; affordable housing
projects; occupied legal non -conforming residential units under certain circumstances;
where voter approval would result in an unconstitutional taking of private property; or
where voter approval violates state or federal law. The initiative would supersede any
inconsistent provisions of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and apply to all
development projects initiated on or after the date of publication of the Notice of Intent
to Circulate Petition.
of 1
04
�•••'61, ��
*' -alploopW.,o �w F a"V
4%a
•l:imr•
g
•
on
� 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction..................................................................................................... 1
A. Request for an Impact Report Related to "An Initiative To Require Voter Approval on
Certain Development Projects".......................................................................................... 1
B. Report Organization.............................................................................................................
1
II. Legal Analysis...................................................................................................
2
A. The Applicability of the Initiative to the General Plan Update ............................................
2
B. Triggers, Impacts and Exceptions........................................................................................
6
III. Planning Analysis...........................................................................................
11
A. Comparative Growth Measures.........................................................................................
11
B. Inventory of Entitled Projects............................................................................................
12
C. Timing Implications of the Initiative on Major Changes in Allowable Land Uses ..............
17
IV. Comparison to A Sample of Voter Initiatives .................................................
18
A. Comparison of Newport Beach Measure S to the Proposed Initiative .............................
18
B. Summaries of Other Similar Initiatives..............................................................................
22
V. Financial Analysis...........................................................................................
24
A. Impact of Voter -Approval Requirements..........................................................................
24
B. Financial Feasibility of Revitalization and Major New Development ................................
27
C. Fiscal and Economic Impact...............................................................................................
30
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Land Use and Trips Analysis
Attachment 11 Map of Major Changes in Land Use 2007 - 2015
Attachment III Summaries of California Growth Management Initiatives
Attachment IV
Case Study Analysis
Exhibit A
Property Sales Data
Exhibit B
Pro Forma Analysis: Apartment Development
Attachment V
Fiscal & Economic Impact Analysis
Exhibit A
Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay
Exhibit B
Residential Incentive — Harbor
Exhibit C
Residential Incentive — Newport
Exhibit D
LA Times Site
Exhibit E SoBECA
Exhibit F Segerstrom Home Ranch Site
Exhibit G Sakioka Site — Lot 2
Exhibit H Fairview Site
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Request for an Impact Report Related to "An Initiative To Require Voter
Approval on Certain Development Projects"
On June 29, 2015, a petition was submitted to the City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa (the
"City") that was titled, "An Initiative To Require Voter Approval On Certain Development
Projects" (the "Initiative"). The date of publication of the notice of intention to circulate the
Initiative petition was July 17, 2015. A Ballot Title & Summary of the Petition was prepared by
the City Attorney pursuant to Section 9203 of the Elections Code. A Certificate as to
Verification of Signatures on Petition has been received by the City from the Registrar of Voters
of the County of Orange.
On March 15, 2016, the City Clerk, acting in the capacity of the elections official, certified to the
City Council the sufficiency of the petition. The City Council directed City staff and Keyser
Marston Associates, Inc. ("KMA") to prepare a report pursuant to Section 9212 of the Elections
Code to be presented at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of April 5, 2016. The
information contained in this report (the "Section 9212 Report") is responsive to the
information requested by the City Council at the March 15, 2016 City Council meeting, and is
consistent with Election Code Section 9212.
B. Report Organization
The following Section 9212 Report is intended to provide the City Council with an evaluation of
the impact the terms of the Initiative could potentially have on future development in Costa
Mesa. This Section 9212 Report is organized as follows:
A legal analysis of the applicability of the Initiative to the General Plan Update and an
analysis of the Initiative's triggers and exceptions;
2. An analysis of the Planning issues associated with the Initiative;
3. A survey of California growth management initiatives; and
4. The impact on the City's General Fund and economic development opportunties.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 1
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. The Applicability of the Initiative to the General Plan Update
The plain language of the Initiative ordinance appears to evidence an intent that it apply
retroactively to any "Major Changes in Allowable Land Use", including the General Plan Update,
that occurs on or after July 17, 2015. However, a strong argument can be made based on the
definitional language of the ordinance that the Initiative would not in fact apply retroactively to
the General Plan Update. This is because the Initiative ordinance specifically defines "General
Plan" as the general plan "in effect as of the effective date of the ordinance". Therefore, as
discussed below, the "General Plan" would mean that general plan in effect as of November 25,
2016. If a court were to adopt this construction of the ordinance, there would be no
retroactive effect to the General Plan Update. Similarly, based on case law, it is unlikely that
the Initiative can legally be applied retroactively to the Update or to any General Plan
amendment that occurs prior to November 25, 2016.
1. The Language of the Initiative.
Every city and county in California, including charter cities, must have a comprehensive general
plan.' In Costa Mesa's case, the General Plan has not been updated since 2000. The General
Plan Update is anticipated to be adopted by April, 2016. On its face, the Initiative appears to
apply retroactively to certain legislative actions that meet stated threshold criteria. These
legislative acts are amendment, changes to or replacement of the General Plan, the Zoning
Code, a Specific Plan, or an Overlay plan. Section 4(b) provides:
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9205, all Major Changes in Allowable Land
Use approved by the Costa Mesa City Council on or after the date of publication
of the notice of intention to circulate the initiative petition adding this ordinance
to the City Municipal Code shall be subject to the provisions of this ordinance.
(Emphasis added.)
The date of publication of the notice of intention to circulate the Initiative petition was July 17,
2015. The Update, as an amendment or replacement of the General Plan, coupled with its
impacts, meets the definition of a "Major Change in Allowable Land Use" as defined in Section
3(f). However, Section 3(c) defines "General Plan" as:
1 Gov Code §65300; Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 777.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 2
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
"General Plan" means the General Plan of the City of Costa Mesa in effect as of
the effective date [sic] of this ordinance, or as may be amended pursuant to this
ordinance. (Emphasis added.)
This definition is in contrast to the definition of a "Specific Plan" in Section 3(I):
"Specific Plan" means any existing Specific Plan" in effect as of January 1, 2015 or
any Specific Plan as may be amended pursuant to this ordinance or any new
Specific Plans which shall be approved by both the Costa Mesa City Council as
well as the voters of Costa Mesa pursuant to this ordinance. (Emphasis added.)
The ordinance defines "Effective Date" [sic] in Section 4(a):
This ordinance shall be binding and effective as of the earliest date allowed
law (the "Effective Date")... (Emphasis added).
Pursuant to Elections Code section 9217, an ordinance adopted by initiative takes effect 10
days after the election is declared by the city council.2 For the upcoming general election, the
earliest date the Initiative ordinance could take effect is November 25, 2016. Thus, the
"effective date" and "earliest date allowed by law" for purposes of the General Plan would
appear to be November 25, 2016. Therefore, by definition, the "General Plan" would mean
whatever general plan is in effect as of November 25, 2016.
This interpretation of the "earliest date allowed by law" is consistent with case law regarding
general plans discussed below — as well as with the "Exceptions" language of Section 7(c) that
provides "[t]he provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to the extent that they would violate
state or federal law."
The Update's Land Use Element's amended Land Use Plan includes certain future legislative
actions, such as zone changes and specific plan amendments, as discussed in Section V of this
report. As discussed above, the Initiative is unlikely to apply retroactively to the General Plan
Update. However, the future legislative actions contemplated by the Update —to the extent
they meet the stated thresholds — would, based on the terms of the ordinance, be subject to
the Initiative.
z "If a majority of the voters voting on a proposed ordinance vote in its favor, the ordinance shall become a valid
and binding ordinance of the city. The ordinance shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote is
declared by the legislative body, and shall go into effect 10 days after that date..." Elec Code § 9217 (in part).
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 3
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
2. The Case Law.
A general plan, as a legislative act, is subject to both amendment by initiative' and the
referendum power of the voters.' This power has been specifically held to be applicable to
general law cities.5 California Supreme Court decisions have held that both adoption and
amendment of general plans are subject to referenda and the initiative process. 6,'
Amendment by initiative must comply with the substantive requirements for a general plan.'
Courts have generally rejected the argument that submission of a general plan to the voters
could potentially frustrate the fundamental objectives of planning law by failing to keep the
general plan current.'
As a general proposition, a statute or ordinance may apply retroactively, if the legislative intent
to do so is clearly apparent.10 Generally, such a law is invalid only if it encroaches on vested
rights or impairs the obligations of contract.11 However, the California Supreme Court's
decision in Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek12 and the reasoning therein
suggests that subjecting a general plan to retroactive approval or disapproval by an initiative
ordinance is improper:
We cannot at once accept the function of a general plan as a "constitution," or
perhaps more accurately a charter for future development, and the proposition
that it can be amended without notice to the electorate that such amendment is
the purpose of an initiative. Implied amendments or repeals by implication are
disfavored in any case *** and the doctrine may not be applied here. The
' See DeVita v. Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763; 8 Witkin Sum. Cal. Law Const Law § 1017 (10th 2010).
4 See O'Loane v. O'Rourke (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 774, 784; Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 570 (discussing the
Coastal Act).
I O'Loane v. O'Rourke (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 774, 783 (general law city); see also Committee of Seven Thousand v.
Superior Court (1988) 45 Cal.3d 491, 504 (discussing O'Loane).
6 Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561; Committee of Seven Thousand v. Superior Court (1988) 45 Cal.3d 491; see
also Citizens for Planning Responsibly v. County of San Luis Obispo (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 357, 367 (discussing
cases).
' The precise issue of whether or not the housing element of the general plan, as opposed to the land use element,
is subject to the initiative process has not yet been addressed by the Supreme Court. See DeVita v. Napa (1995) 9
C.4th 763, at fn. 11; see also San Mateo County Coastal Landowners'Assn. v. County of San Mateo (1995) 38
Cal.App.4th 523, 543 (discussing DeVita).
8 66 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 258, 259.
' See DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 792.
10 Tevis v. San Francisco (1954) 43 Cal.2d 190, 195.
11 O'Connor v. Superior Court (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 107, 114; Rosenblatt v. California State Board of Pharmacy
(1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 69, 72.
11 Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 4
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
Planning and Zoning Law itself precludes consideration of a zoning ordinance
which conflicts with a general plan as a pro tanto repeal or implied amendment
of the general plan. The general plan stands. A zoning ordinance that is
inconsistent with the general plan is invalid when passed *** and one that was
originally consistent but has become inconsistent must be brought into
conformity with the general plan. *** The Planning and Zoning Law does not
contemplate that general plans will be amended to conform to zoning
ordinances. The tail does not wag the dog. The general plan is the charter to
which the ordinance must conform."
The initiative ordinance at issue in Lesher is not identical to the Initiative here. Nonetheless, the
longstanding rule that a zoning ordinance cannot amend the general plan is applicable, as is the
rule that a zoning ordinance that conflicts with a general plan is invalid at the time it is
passed.l4
If the Update is adopted in April, 2016, as scheduled, it then becomes the General Plan to which
the Zoning Code must conform. The City and property owners are entitled to rely upon this
General Plan to guide future development. Such reliance is arguably impossible if elements of
the General Plan as adopted and in effect as of April, 2016, would subject to a mandatory vote
of the people starting in November 2016 — which vote itself might not take place until 2018.11
Further, an uncertainty could result as to which general plan would control. In theory, any plan
or permit approvals that were issued consistent with the General Plan as updated in April, 2016
could become inconsistent in November, 2018. As discussed in Section IV of this report, none
of the previous 24 growth management initiatives summarized in Exhibit III of this report
appear to provide for retroactive application. Not surprisingly, the precise legal issue presented
here — whether an initiative ordinance can apply retroactively to a general plan amendment
that occurred prior to the effective date of the initiative ordinance — has not been directly
addressed by the California appellate courts. However, under Lesher, a strong argument can
be made that such a vote to undo the Update would act as an impermissible amendment to the
General Plan by zoning ordinance.
13 1d. at 540-541 (internal citations omitted).
14 Id. at 544; see also deeottari v. City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1212; Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors
(1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704.
11 See Section 5(c).
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 5
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
B. Triggers, Impacts and Exceptions
1. Actions that "Trigger" the Initiative
The actions that "trigger" the application of the Initiative to a specific project under Section 3(f)
are a "Major Change in Allowable Land Use" —which is defined as any "proposed amendment,
change or replacement" of:
• the General Plan,
• the Zoning Ordinance [Title 13 of the CMMC],
• a Specific Plan, or
• an Overlay Plan,
that meet the "conditions" specified in Section 3(f)(1) through (6).
The Initiative requires that the proposed amendments, changes, or replacements of the
General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, a Specific Plan or an Overlay Plan, be submitted to the voters
only after the "City Council has first approved the change pursuant to all state and local laws
applicable to the approval of land use changes by the legislative body."16 Amendments,
changes, or replacements of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Specific Plan or Overlay Plan
are generally considered legislative acts which may be voted on by the electorate.17 This is in
contrast to administrative acts, such as conditional use permits or variances, which may not be
subject to a vote of the electorate.18
The "conditions" of Section 3(f), that, when combined with one of enumerated legislative acts,
include:
(1) a proposed change that would "significantly increase traffic, density or intensity of us
above the As Built Conditions" as defined in Section 3(k);
(2) a proposed change that would "change a public use to a private use", including a change
of use on:
16 See Section 5(a).
17 See W. W. Dean & Assocs. v. City of S. San Francisco (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1368, 1374-1375; Yost v. Thomas
(1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 570; Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, 516.
18 See id.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 6
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
(i) "land designated for a public use or a public right of way", provided however,
"that the abandonment of a public right of way that is no longer needed" in
conformity with certain state law and local requirements for such disposition;
(3) land designated as utility right-of-way;
(4) land donated, bequeathed or otherwise granted to Costa Mesa;
(5) land used or designated for Costa Mesa school property; or
(6) land owned, controlled or managed by Costa Mesa; [sic.].
However, apparent inconsistencies in the definition of "Major Change in Allowable Land Use"
include the above "uses" at Section 3(f)(3)-(6) that may have been intended to be exempt,
similar to subsection (2)(i)'s exception for abandonment of public rights-of-way. For example,
affirmatively listing "land used or designated for Costa Mesa school property" as a condition
that is subject to the Initiative is in apparent conflict with the "exception" from the Initiative at
Section 7 for "public schools" (see Paragraph B.2., below). As written, by not designating (3)-(6)
as a sub -set of 3(f)(2), such as (ii) -(iv), and/or including a modifier such as "change of use on" as
in Section 3(f)(2) dealing with "land designated for public use", the following are "conditions"
that are automatically included in the definition without any predicate action as in (1) or (2):
(3) land designated as utility right-of-way;
(4) land donated, bequeathed or otherwise granted to Costa Mesa;
(5) land used or designated for Costa Mesa school property; or
(6) land owned, controlled or managed by Costa Mesa; [sic.]
Therefore, under the language of the Initiative, a literal interpretation would be that if a project
involves one of the proposed legislative changes (such as amendment to the general plan) and
land enumerated in (3), (4), (5) or (6) (such as land owned by the City), then this action would
be subject to the Initiative — whether or not it met any of the threshold increases of Section 3(k)
(i.e., generating 200 additional average daily trips). If the Initiative passes, this inconsistency
could only be clarified by a voter approved amendment to the ordinance.
2. Exceptions
Certain stated exceptions to the ordinance are listed in Section 7. They include exceptions for,
or make the ordinance inapplicable to:
a. a Major Change in Allowable Land Use that is "limited to allowing the development of a
public school or hospital";
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 7
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
a project that has acquired "vested rights" prior to the "effective date" of the ordinance
(presumably, November 25, 2016);
C. "to the extent that they would violate state of federal laws";
d. a prohibition against applying the ordinance "in a manner that would result in an
unconstitutional taking of private property";
e. "to affordable housing proposals required by state or federal law";
"to a Major Change in Allowable land use of property with legal non -conforming
residential units that meets specified conditions.
The "public school" and "hospital" exception.
School Districts may exempt themselves, under certain circumstances, from a city's zoning
ordinance, except where the use is for non -classroom facilities.19 Absent this express
exemption, the Initiative could apply to development of non -classroom facilities, if such
development included one of the enumerated legislative changes and met the threshold
criteria. Because of this express exemption, the Initiative does not apply to development of a
public school — which would include any school within the Newport Mesa Unified School
District. This exemption would also apply to charter schools, which, unlike school districts, do
not have the option of exempting themselves from a local zoning ordinance .20 This exemption
also applies to development of "hospitals", which, unlike public schools, do not normally have
an ability to exempt themselves from the City's zoning ordinance.
Vested Rights Exception.
A statute or ordinance may apply retroactively, if the legislative intent to do so is clearly
apparent .21 Generally, such a law is invalid only if it encroaches on vested rights or impairs the
obligations of contra Ct. 22 As discussed previously in this report, the earliest date the Initiative
19 See Gov Code § 53094; City of Santa Cruz v. Santa Cruz Sch. Bd. of Educ. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1.
20 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, no school district may render a city or county ordinance
inapplicable to a charter school facility pursuant to this article, unless the facility is physically located within the
geographical jurisdiction of that school district." Gov Code § 53097.3.
21 Tevis v. San Francisco (1954) 43 Cal.2d 190, 195.
22 O'Connor v. Superior Court (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 107, 114; Rosenblatt v. California State Board of Pharmacy
(1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 69, 72.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 8
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
would take effect is November 25, 2016.23 Depending upon where in the process certain
projects lie, the adoption of the Initiative could nonetheless prevent those projects going
forward depending upon whether the developer has obtained a vested right to proceed with
the project. A vested right to develop occurs fairly late in the development process. In Avco
Community Developers v. South Coast Regional Commission24, the California Supreme Court
held that a developer does not acquire a vested right to a project until building permits are
issued, substantial work has been completed and the developer has incurred substantial
liability in reliance on the permit. It appears that with Avco in mind, the Initiative authorizes
completion of projects that have "vested" before the "effective date" of the ordinance 21 — at
the earliest, November 25, 2016.
In addition, some developers and cities have circumvented application of an initiative to
existing projects by entering into a development agreement that freezes zoning regulations in
place at the time the agreement. 26 Whether a development agreement will apply to an
initiative generally depends on the language of the agreement itseIf. 27 In one instance, a
project was able to go forward, in spite of a newly adopted initiative that would require voter
approval because a vesting tentative tract map had been approved.28 In response, some
initiative proponents have thwarted issuance of building permits by seeking a temporary
injunction that would not be lifted until after the initiative's effective date.29
Violation of State or Federal Law & Taking of Private Pro
These appear to be a "catch all" exemptions. It is axiomatic that the Initiative could not legally
be applied in a manner that would violate state or federal law. However, in practice, these
exceptions may prove difficult to administer.
23 The 2016 general election will be held on November 8, 2016. With the election results declared at the following
City Council meeting of November 15, 2016 and effective date 10 days thereafter.
2a Avco Community Developers v. South Coast Regional Commission (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 785.
21 Section 7(b) provides, "This ordinance shall not preclude completion of a site-specific development that depends
on a Major Change in Allowable Land Use approved before the effective date of this ordinance, if before such date,
the holder of any permit or other entitlement for use for such development has lawfully and in good faith acquired
a vested right, under state law, to carry out the development to completion."
26 See Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465, 466 (Pardee involved a stipulated
judgement rather than a development agreement, but is generally regarded as instructive on the issue on whether
an agreement will exempt development from an initiative's reach).
27 See id.
28 This was a lower court decision that was not appealed - Davidon Homes v. City of Pleasant Hill, No. 297988, slip
op. (Contra Costa Co. Sup. Ct., Sept. 23. 1987).
29 Simac Design, Inc. v. Alciati (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 146, 150).
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 9
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
Affordable Housing Proposals.
In the past decade, the City has not processed an affordable housing project that applied the
density bonus provisions pursuant to state law 30, and there are no pending applications for
new affordable housing projects. Staff is not aware of any affordable housing proposals
involving density bonuses within Costa Mesa, nor any that are required by "state or federal
law". However, the broad language "affordable housing" and "required by state or federal law"
—without definition — precludes a detailed analysis of this exception.
Maior Change in Allowable Land Use of Property with Legal Non -Conforming Residential
Units
In the last decade, the City has not processed a major development site consisting of 40
dwelling units or more that involved demolition of existing non -conforming residential units.
For purposes of the Initiative, the consideration of trip generation associated with "as -built"
conditions would include the trips allocated to the existing non -conforming units.
31 Gov Code §§65915 — 65918.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 10
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
III. PLANNING ANALYSIS
A. Comparative Growth Measures
For the purposes of this analysis, the following land use change measures were evaluated:
1. The amount of development that currently exists in Costa Mesa;
2. The amount of development allowed by the current General Plan; and
3. The amount of development allowed by the General Plan Update.
The results of this comparative analysis are detailed in Attachment I, and summarized in the
following table:
" DUs = Dwelling Units.
32 TSF = Thousands of Square Feet.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 11
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
Existing
Current
General Plan
Land Use
Conditions
General Plan
Update
Residential 31
DUs
42,263
48,859
51,894
Office 32
TSF
7,224
8,932
10,787
Commercial
TSF
9,741
11,977
11,939
Light Industrial
TSF
13,087
13,108
12,704
Lodging
Rooms
4,149
4,349
3,023
Auto Dealership
TSF
491
491
491
Public, Religious & Cultural
TSF
1,273
1,519
1,519
Health Care Facilities
Beds
920
920
570
Educational Facilities
Students
37,965
39,351
39,351
Uses Measured by the Acre
1,543
1,459
1,537
Storage (TSF)
TSF
1,171
877
530
" DUs = Dwelling Units.
32 TSF = Thousands of Square Feet.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 11
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
B. Inventory of Entitled Projects
1. Projects with Major Changes in Allowable Land Uses in the Past Eight
Years
The following table provides summaries of the projects that were approved for entitlements
between 2007 and 2015 that would need to be considered for traffic -generation purposes if
located within one-half mile of a development that would be defined as a Major Change in
Allowable Land Use under the terms of the Initiative.
Table A: Major Changes in Allowable Land Uses 2007 — 2015
Attachment II: Locations #1 - #6 Identified on a Citywide Map
Application
Date
No.
No.
Approved
Description
Criteria Per Initiative
1
GP -11-02
11/15/2011
14850 Sunflower Ave. -
Vacant site
Sakioka Lot 2
(1,062 a.m./1,406 p.m.)
TRIP BUDGETS FOR SAKIOKA
Trip Budget
LOT 2
2
GP -12-01
7/3/2012
1726 Superior Ave.
Existing Trips — 0 (vacant site)
The proposed project
Project Trip —1,160
involves: (1) Demolishing an
existing 11,000 sq. ft.
building (former Tower
Records) and constructing a
new 14,310 sq. ft. Walgreens
Store
3
GP -13-01
8/5/2014
125 E. Baker Street
No. of Units - 240
A proposal for a five -story,
Existing Trips — 506
240 -unit apartment complex
Project Trips —1,569
(63 -foot maximum height
Net Increase —1,090
proposed) at a density of 58
dwelling units per acre with a
six -story parking structure
4
R-10-01
4/23/2010
1500 Mesa Verde Drive
No. of Units - 224
PA -10-10
224 -unit Senior Housing
Existing Trips — 0 (vacant site)
Development
Project Trips —1,007
5
GP -14-04
11/17/2015
2277 Harbor Blvd.
No. of units — 224
R-14-04
224 -unit apartment
Existing Trips —1,258 (fully
PA -14-27
development to replace an
occupied motel)
existing 236 -room motel
Project Trips —1,490
Net Increase — 232 (net
increase)
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 12
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
Table A: Major Changes in Allowable Land Uses 2007 — 2015
Attachment II: Locations #1 - #6 Identified on a Citywide Map
Application
Date
6
GP -06-03
11/20/2007
3350 Avenue of the Arts
No. of Units - 120
A
PA -14-11
11/18/2014
General Plan Amendment for
No. of trips - 2,911 hotel
development of a 200 -room
Project trips — 771
hotel and 120 luxury high-rise
Project Trips - 2,770
residential tower.
(apartments)
Source: General Plan and Zone Change Log 2007 — 2015
2. Projects not Defined as Major Changes in Allowable Land Uses in the Past
Eight Years
The following table identifies projects with approved entitlements between 2007 and 2015 in
the Urban Plan areas that would not be defined as a Major Change in Allowable Land Use under
the terms of the Initiative. These projects complied with the Urban Plan or the North Costa
Mesa Specific Plan.
Table B: Urban Plan or Specific Plan Project(s) 2007 - 2015
Not Defined as Major Changes in Allowable Land Use Under the Terms of the Initiative
Application
Date
No.
No.
Approved
Description
Criteria Per Initiative
A
PA -14-11
11/18/2014
595 Anton Blvd.
Existing Trips — 1,336
Revised Project -393
(restaurant uses)
apartments units
Project Trips - 2,770
(apartments)
Net Increase —1,434 trips
B
PA -12-21
1/14/2013
1527 Newport Blvd. (Level
No. of Units — 60
PA -13-07
05/13/2013
One)
Existing Trips — 223
Project Trips - 935
C
PA -13-22
11/12/2013
1677 Superior Pointe
No. of Units — 49
(Superior Pointe)
Existing Trips — 549
Project Trips - 578
D
PA -08-04
07/28/2008
1036 W. 18th Street
No. of Units — 30
Existing Trips —122
Project Trips - 478
E
PA -13-21
03/04/2014
2025 Placentia Ave. (West
No. of Units — 36
Place)
Existing Trips — 200 ADT
Project Trips — 270 ADT
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 13
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
Table B: Urban Plan or Specific Plan Project(s) 2007 - 2015
Not Defined as Major Changes in Allowable Land Use Under the Terms of the Initiative
F
PA -14-29
05/11/2015
671 W. 17th Street (West
No. of Units —177
Gateway - former Argotech)
Existing Trips — 598 ADT
Project Trips —1,542 ADT
G
PA -13-22
11/12/2013
1620 and 1644 Whittier Ave.
No. of Units — 89
(Lighthouse - former Amtech)
Existing Trips — 524
Project Trips - 981
Source: General Plan and Zone Change Log 2007 — 2015
The creation of the Westside Urban Plans required a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and
Zoning Code Amendment. The Urban Plans were adopted in April 2006 and the Plans
themselves would have been subject to the Initiative if it existed at that time. However,
although subsequent Urban Plan projects (Table B) may have involved increases in trip
generation or greater than 40 residential units, none of these Westside Urban Plan projects
would have been subject to the Initiative, because they complied with a previously approved
Urban Plan.
Similarly, the North Costa Mesa mid -rise residential projects listed in Table B were amendments
to previously approved projects, but they did not require Specific Plan amendments. Therefore,
while the 250 -unit mid -rise project at 580 Anton, and the Symphony Apartments involve
increased trips, these projects were compliant with the Specific Plan and would not be
theoretically subject to the Initiative.
3. Projects Approved Prior to 2007
The following table provides a summary of entitlements that were approved between 2002 and
2006. This table is provided for reference purposes to illustrate entitlements that theoretically
would have been subject to the Initiative, and therefore theoretically would have been
classified as a Major Change in Allowable Land Use.
Because these projects were approved prior to the eight-year period established in the
Initiative, the traffic generation from these developments projects would not be considered for
purposes of identifying whether or not a development project is subject to the Initiative.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 14
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
Table C:
Examples of Major Changes in Allowable Land Uses Approved Prior to 2007
Application
Date
No.
No.
Approved
Description
Criteria Per Initiative
A
GP -02-04
01/20/04
1901 Newport Blvd.
No. of trips — 842
Create site specific FAR and
No. of dwellings — 145
site specific density (145 unit
condominium development)
B
GP -02-06
10/18/04
1626-1640 Newport Blvd
No. of trips (186 a.m. / 281
R-02-03
General Plan Amendment for
p.m.)
a site specific FAR of 0.40 for
a moderate traffic use in the
General Commercial land use
designation (76,500 SF
medical building)
C
GP -04-01
05/17/04
330 - 340 W. Bay Street
Existing condition — 570 ADT
R-04-01
General Plan Amendment
No. of trips — 421 (44 units)
from General Commercial to
Net Increase — (-149)
Medium Density Residential
(44 Dwelling Units)
D
GP -04-02
08/02/04
1695 Superior Ave & 635 W.
Net increase compared to GP
R-04-02
17th Street
—298
General Plan Amendment
Add 10,945 SF of commercial
from Light Industry to
Neighborhood Commercial
(10,945 SF commercial
building)
E
GP -06-02
2006
GPA to allow High Rise
No. of dwellings - 1269
Residential projects in the
Cultural Arts Center, Urban
Center Commercial, and High
Density Residential land use
designations. (described
below)
F
GP -05-08
2006
675 Anton Blvd.
No. of dwellings —180
(GP -06-02)
General Plan Amendment for
No. of trips — 346 (net
180 -unit residential high-rise
increase)
development at Pacific Arts
Plaza in place of 67,450 SF
office building
G
GP -05-09
2006
605 Town Center Dr.
No. of trips — 484 (net
(GP -06-02)
Development of 80
increase)
residential units atop of
No. of dwellings — 80
14,000 SF of museum and
ancillary commercial uses.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 15
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
Table C:
Examples of Major Changes in Allowable Land Uses Approved Prior to 2007
H
GP -05-10
2006
3400 Bristol Street
No. of trips — 525 (net
(GP -06-02)
General Plan Amendment to
increase)
allow addition of a high-rise
No. of dwellings - 275
residential units in
conjunction with a multi-
story 200 -room hotel with
220,000 SF at 3400 Bristol
Street and a 21 -story tower
of 336,525 SF at 3420 Bristol
Street
GP -05-13
2006
595 Anton Blvd.
No. of trips —1,336
(GP -06-02)
Site specific density to allow
(restaurant uses)
484 units
No. of trips for apartments —
Revised Project — 393
2,770
Apartments
Net Increase —1,434 trips
J
GP -05-07
2006
580 Anton Blvd.
No. of dwelling units — 250
(GP -06-02)
Site specific density to allow
No. of trips — 45 (net
250 units
increase)
K
R-04-03
02/23/2004
3333 Hyland Ave.
No. of trips - 3,254 Daily (net
South Coast Collection
increase)
Demolition of 307,000 SF
state Farm Building and
construction of 312,540 SF
for furniture, retail and food
uses.
4. Senior Center Affordable Housing Project
The 2008-2014 Housing Element described a potential affordable housing project at the Costa
Mesa Senior Center at 695 West 19th Street. The Costa Mesa Senior Center was built by the
City in 1991. This 2.7 -acre site has a General Commercial land use designation and is zoned C1
(Local Business District).
The Center is currently overseen by the City's Parks & Community Services Department. The
Center's mission is to maximize the quality of life among the older adult population of Costa
Mesa and surrounding communities through provision of senior programs.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 16
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
The City had considered (in concept only) a high-density residential development on the
existing Senior Center parking lot. This 1.4 -acre area could have potentially accommodated a
residential low-rise building for seniors and/or families above a parking structure. The
proposed project (in concept) involved a 150 -unit residential development at a density of 107 -
dwelling units per acre. Fifty percent (50%) of the units were earmarked as affordable to very-
low/low income households, for a total of 75 affordable units.
This proposed conceptual senior/family housing project was located in the 19 West Urban Plan
area, which established a mixed-use development overlay zone. In this case, the mixed uses
involved the Senior Center (institutional use) and housing (residential use). Due to the location
of the site in the Urban Plan area, a General Plan amendment or rezone would not have been
required for this proposed project.
C. Timing Implications of the Initiative on Major Changes in Allowable Land
Uses
Following is the City's processing timelines for projects involving major development proposals
that require a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Zoning Code Amendment, or Specific Plan
Amendment:
• For projects requiring an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Eight (8) to 10
months
• For projects requiring an Environmental Impact Report: 12 to 18 months
If these Major Changes in Allowable Land Uses are subject to the Initiative, following are the
timing implications after the project is approved by the City Council:
• Project must be considered at the next General Election, which occurs every two years.
• Project may be considered by Special Election, which may occur anytime during the
year. However, an approximately a six-month lead time for placement on ballot may be
required for special elections.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 17
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
IV. COMPARISON TO A SAMPLE OF VOTER INITIATIVES
At the March 15, 2016 City Council meeting, a member of the public identified 44 growth
management initiatives that have been approved by the voters in California communities over
the past 43 years. Summaries of the initiatives' characteristics are presented in Attachment
111.33 It is important to note that the effective date for each of the surveyed initiatives fell after
the vote of the people was certified. None of these initiatives have a stated effective date that
is retroactive to an earlier point in time.
After reviewing the identified initiatives, it is KMA's opinion that only four of the initiatives are
truly pertinent to the analysis of the proposed Costa Mesa Initiative. Of particular interest is
Measure S (Greenlight) in the City of Newport Beach, which was approved by the voters in
November 2000. A comparison of Newport Beach Measure S to the proposed Initiative follows,
and summaries of the other three pertinent initiatives are presented in the following sections
of this report.
A. Comparison of Newport Beach Measure S to the Proposed Initiative
The proposed Initiative has been likened to Measure S, which was approved by the Newport
Beach voters on November 7, 2000, and is codified in the Section 423 of the Newport Beach
City Charter. The specific comparison is that Measure S requires voter approval on general plan
amendments for certain types of projects. However, there are a number of differences
between Measure S and the proposed Initiative that are worth noting. To that end, the salient
characteristics of Measure S and the proposed Initiative are compared in the following multi -
page table:
Form of Government
Effective Date
Voter approval required for
Major Amendments to
identified Planning documents
Newport Beach: Measure S
Charter City
December 15, 2000 - 38
days after the election.
Proposed Initiative
General Law City
July 17, 2015 — 16 months
before the election.
General Plan General Plan, Zoning Code,
Specific Plans, and Overlay
Plans
33 Twenty (20) of the identified initiatives related to the establishment of Urban Growth Boundaries. Given the
lack of relevance to the proposed Initiative, summaries were only provided for the other 24 identified initiatives.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 18
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
Newport Beach: Measure S
Major Amendments are defined as any of the following:
Trips:
Measurement Measured against the trip
estimate for the maximum
amount of floor area or
dwelling units allowed by
the General Plan.
Threshold Increase of more than 100
trips in the morning peak
hour or more than 100
trips in the evening peak
hour.
Residential Development Increase of 100 dwelling
units.
Proposed Initiative
Measured against "as
built" conditions.
Increase of over 200
average trips per day, or
Increase in the
volume/capacity of an
intersection based on
specified Levels of Service
(LOS) measures, or
Increase in the Intersection
Capacity Utilization from
less than .9 to greater than
.9; or
Change in the LOS at any
intersection or corridor
from better than "D" to
worse than "D".
Increase of 40 dwelling
units.
Non -Residential Development Increase of 40,000 square Increase of 10,000 square
feet of gross building area. feet of area.
Changes that required discretionary approval on sites within the Neighborhood
Definition of Neighborhood
Statistical Areas as defined
in the Land Use Element of
the General Plan.
mile of the proposed
development site.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 19
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
Definition of Changes
Time Period
Other instances that a vote is
required
Planning Commission and City
Council Approval
Newport Beach: Measure S
Increases created by the
proposed project plus 80%
of the increases related to
other amendments
affecting the same
Neighborhood. Excludes
projects that were
approved by the voters.
Preceding 10 years
None identified
Any required CEQA
documentation must be
prepared and certified.
City Council must decide
any discretionary land use
approval or permit for the
proposed Amendment.
Proposed Initiative
Increases created by the
proposed project and
100% of the increases
created by projects that
received minor changes
that would not by
themselves require voter
approval.
Preceding eight years
Land designated as a utility
right-of-way under
specified circumstances.
Land is donated,
bequeathed or otherwise
granted to the City.
Land used or designated
for Costa Mesa school
property.
Land owned, controlled or
managed by the City.
Any required CEQA
documentation must be
prepared and certified.
City Council must approve
the Amendment pursuant
to all state and local laws
applicable to the approval
of the proposed land use
changes.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 20
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
Election Timing
Newport Beach: Measure S
At a noticed public hearing
tied to the approval of the
Amendment, the City
Council must schedule an
election. The election may
be held at the next regular
municipal election, or at a
special election if the City
and the proponent have
entered into a written
agreement to share the
costs.
Initiative related requirements None stated
for receipt of a Certificate of
Occupancy
Proposed Initiative
The election may be set for
the first regular municipal
election following City
Council approval of the
Amendment, or at a
special election if the cost
is borne solely by the
proponent.
All traffic impacts must be
mitigated, the City must
have received payment of
the then current trip fees,
and an enforceable
agreement must have
been executed that
specifies any other
mitigation measures.
As indicated in the preceding table, the similarities between the two growth management
measures include the fact that voter approval is required for general plan amendments that
generate a certain number of increased car trips, adding a certain number of dwelling units and
adding non-residential floor area. However, the Initiative proposed in Costa Mesa is more
expansive than Newport Beach Measure S in the following key ways:
1. The Initiative also applies to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinances, Specific Plans and
Overlay plans. Measure S only applies to modifications to the General Plan.
2. The Initiative applies to residential projects with an increase of 40 units versus Measure
S at 100 units.
3. The Initiative applies to an increase of 10,000 square feet for non-residential projects
versus Measure S at 40,000 square feet.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 21
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
4. The Initiative sets the maximum increase in trips at 200 average daily traffic versus
Measure S, which sets the maximum at 100 additional morning or evening peak period
trips. The Initiative also applies several Level of Service and volume/capacity tests.
5. The Initiative applies voter -approval requirements to projects where General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance or Specific Plan amendments have been adopted, but the projects
have not vested.
6. The Initiative prohibits issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy until impacts have been
mitigated.
B. Summaries of Other Similar Initiatives
1. City of Redondo Beach — Measure DD - 2008
Measure DD was approved by the voters on November 4, 2008. Measure DD went into effect
on December 16, 2008.
Measure DD is codified in City Charter Section 27. Measure DD requires voter approval for any
"Major Change in Allowable Land Use" to the general plan, including its local coastal element
and the City's zoning ordinance. "Significant Increase" is defined as any project that requires a
general plan amendment that increases traffic by more than 150 trips during the peak hours in
the morning or evening; the density increase generated by the project produces more than 25
dwelling units; or 40,000 square feet of commercial area. In addition, Measure DD calculations
must be applied to the cumulative amount of development, that required an amendment to
the general plan, that occurred within the same neighborhood within the preceding eight years.
Neighborhood is defined as all properties located either entirely or partially within 1,000 feet of
any parcel or lot that is subject to a proposed change in allowable land use.
2. City of Encinitas — Proposition A — 2013
Proposition A was approved by the voters on June 18, 2013. The initiative became effective on
July 21, 2013.
Proposition A requires vote approval when publicly or privately initiated "Major Amendments"
are proposed to a "Planning Policy Document". Planning Policy Documents are defined as the
Land Use Element and Land Use Policy Maps of the General Plan; the Zoning Code and Zoning
Map; and specific plan or development agreement. Major Amendments are defined as:
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 22
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
Increases in the number of dwelling units on a residential lot;
2. Increases in the number of separate parcels that may be created from an existing parcel;
3. Changes in identified zone types;
4. Changes from residential land use to non-residential land use;
5. Increases in the maximum height of development and how height is measured;
6. Increases in the maximum allowable commercial or retail square footage on a parcel;
and
7. An action that repeals any Planning Policy Document.
Proposition A imposes a citywide height limit of two stories or 30 feet for all buildings and
structures, except for medical complex development projects and specified buildings with a
public high school on a minimum 10 -acre site. Proposition A also preserves agricultural lands
and open space.
3. City of Escondido — Proposition S —1998
Proposition S requires a public vote for any general plan amendment or the creation of any new
Specific Plan Area if it involves an increase in the residential density; a change, alteration or
increase in the general plan's residential land use categories; and a change of the land use
designation of any property from residential to industrial or commercial use. Proposition S
essentially asked the voters to affirm the general plan in place as of 1997, and to subject any
significant land use changes to a vote of the people.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 23
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
V. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
A. Impact of Voter -Approval Requirements
The Initiative imposes voter -approval requirements on a wide range of developments that are
anticipated to occur under the auspices of the General Plan Update. The City's Planning
Department staff has concluded that the implementation of the General Plan Update will
require properties to be rezoned, and/or modifications will need to be made to existing specific
plans. It is possible that these implementing actions will trigger the Initiative requirements for
voter approval.
The voter -approval requirement adds a significant component of uncertainty in the
development process that can discourage investment in new major development projects, and
in the recycling of underutilized or blighted properties. This is particularly relevant to the
following components of the General Plan Update:
The Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard Residential Incentive Areas, and the
Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay;
2. The LA Times site, which is located at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and South
Coast Drive;
3. The SoBECA area, which includes a land use redesignation that allows residential units
to be constructed;
4. The Segerstrom Home Ranch and Sakioka Site — Lot 2 in the North Costa Mesa Specific
Plan Area; and
5. The redevelopment of the Fairview Developmental Center.
The development process is fraught with several levels of risk, but in general developers seek
out development opportunities in which the entitlement process is well defined and
uncertainty is minimized. The imposition of a voter -approval requirement has the following key
impacts:
It increases the inherent risk that a project will not be approved;
2. It requires developers to make a substantial investment of capital prior to placing the
proposed project in front of the voters; and
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 24
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
3. It prolongs the development process, which increases the carrying costs incurred by the
proposed project.
Measuring the impacts created by voter -approval requirements is a hotly debated issue. To
date, very little empirical research on this topic has been undertaken. However, there is some
anecdotal evidence of the impacts created by the growth management initiatives that KMA
reviewed. The results are summarized in the following sections of this report.
1. Impacts Generated by Surveyed Initiatives
City of Newport Beach — Measure S
Measure S was placed into effect in December 2000. In 2001, Koll Development proposed an
office tower, and in 2004 a five-star hotel was proposed on the Balboa Peninsula. Both projects
required voter approval, and both projects were defeated at the ballot box. Subsequently, the
Irvine Company withdrew a proposed expansion to Newport Center and Pacific Life withdrew
an office expansion project. No projects that require a vote have been proposed since 2004.
On July 25, 2006, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update to the general plan. This
update reduced the allowable non-residential development by 449,499 square feet, increased
the allowable residential development by 1,166 dwelling units, and reduced peak hour trips by
1,121 in the morning and 958 in the evening. It was determined that this general plan update
was subject to voter approval, and it was placed on the ballot as Measure V. A competing
measure that was called Measure X (Greenlight II) was placed on the ballot as well. In the
election, which was held on November 7, 2006, Measure X failed and Measure V passed by a
54% to 46% margin.
City of Redondo Beach — Proposition DD
Proposition DD was placed into effect in December 2008. In November 2010, the City placed
Measure G on the ballot. Measure G was a proposed change to the Redondo Beach Local
Coastal Plan (LCP) and the Zoning Ordinance for the Coastal Plan. The amendment also called
for major changes in existing policies and development standards. The modifications to the LCP
and the Zoning Ordinance allowed for 400,000 square feet of development in the harbor area;
540,000 square feet of development along Catalina Avenue, and the continuation of the AES
power plant and the addition of a desalination plant.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 25
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
Measure G was approved by the voters in November 2010. In October 2012, the City Council
selected a developer to undertake the development of a large-scale mixed-use project at King
Harbor. In February 2016, a citizens group commenced a signature drive to place an initiative
on the ballot to impose stricter limits on development than were imposed by Measure G.
City of Escondido — Proposition S
After the initiative passed in 1998, the City attempted to identify property owners that wished
to change their land use designation. Initially, 16 property owners submitted proposals to
modify their land use designation. Eight developers subsequently withdrew from the process,
and chose to develop under the existing land use designation for their property. The other
eight property owners proceeded through the process and received City Council approval.
These projects included increasing the number of residential units on four properties from 146
units to 284 units; three properties called for changing residential land to light industrial; and
one changed residential to commercial use. Each of the eight ballot measures failed. This had a
chilling effect on property owners applying for land use designation changes.
In May 2012, the City Council approved an update to the general plan, which was the first
comprehensive update since 1990. Proposition S requires that amendments to defined
components of the general plan can only occur after a vote of the people if the proposed
changes increase residential density, change the general plan land use categories, or change
certain residential designations to commercial or industrial designations. The general plan
update was placed on the November 2012 ballot as Proposition N, and it passed 53% to 47%.
City of Encinitas — Proposition S
Proposition S went into effect in July 2013. It is too early to determine what impact the voter -
approval requirements will have on future development. However, it should be noted that the
major residential developments that have been proposed since Proposition S was enacted have
applied for the state density bonus.
2. Conclusions — Impact of Voter -Approval Requirements
A review of the available scholarly literature indicates that there is consistent evidence that
imposing voter -approval requirements on proposed development creates a negative impact on
development opportunities. This impact is caused by the combination of the increased
uncertainty involved in the development approval process, the additional costs incurred during
the process, and by the fact that voters rarely approve projects that are put forward for a vote.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 26
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
It is interesting to note that the general plan updates that KMA reviewed achieved voter
approval. However, this finding should be considered in the context that in both Newport
Beach and Redondo Beach, citizen groups placed competing initiatives on the ballot to impose
even stricter development controls than were imposed by the initial growth management
initiatives.
B. Financial Feasibility of Revitalization and Major New Development
1. Revitalization
Harbor Boulevard and Newoort Boulevard Overlav Areas
The General Plan Update includes Overlays along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard
that encourage the recycling of underutilized and blighted properties. The Harbor Mixed -Use
Overlay allows residential development to be included in mixed-use projects at a density of up
to 20 -units per acre. The Residential Incentive areas on Harbor Boulevard and Newport
Boulevard allow for residential development at up to 40 -units per acre. These Overlay areas
were created to expand development opportunities on properties that are not developed to
their full potential, or that are improved with outdated buildings and underperforming uses.
Surveys of Costa Mesa property sales are presented in Attachment IV — Exhibit A. As can be
seen in Exhibit A, the weighted average cost of vacant land is $57 per square foot of land area.
Comparatively, the weighted average cost of improved retail properties is $111 per square foot
of land area. This difference is attributable to the value associated with the existing
improvements.
The key constraint associated with the private market recycling properties along commercial
boulevards is the premium costs associated with purchasing improved properties. Unless a
new development project can support a land value that is higher than the combined value of
the land and existing improvements, there is no financial incentive for a developer to recycle
improved properties. As a result, overtime, the boulevards become characterized by
functionally obsolete buildings and marginal businesses.
The ability to develop residential units on the boulevards materially increases the land value
that can be supported. KMA prepared a conceptual pro forma analysis to provide an order -of -
magnitude estimate of residential density that would be required to support the values for
improved commercial parcels. As shown in Attachment IV — Exhibit B, the required density
level is in the range of 54 units per acre.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 27
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
It is clear that the residential development anticipated in these Overlay areas will exceed the
40 -unit trigger established by the Initiative. Given the premium costs associated with acquiring
improved properties, if development in these Overlay areas require voter approval, the
potential for achieving recycling of existing underutilized and blighted properties will be
severely constrained.
LA Times Overlay Area
The General Plan Update calls for the LA Times site to be converted from a General Plan
designation of Industrial Park, to an Overlay that allows for office and retail development. As
will be discussed in the Fiscal and Economic Impact section of this report, the intensification of
the land use is anticipated to generate substantially greater General Fund revenues and
economic development benefits than can be generated by the existing manufacturing uses.
The land uses allowed by the proposed Overlay generate as much as 655,000 square feet of
office and retail space. This is 281,000 square feet more space than the 374,000 square feet of
manufacturing space that is currently located on the property, which triggers the commercial
intensity trigger. Even if the project size was reduced to 374,000 square feet, the
intensification of the uses would trigger the trip count limit applied in the Initiative. Therefore,
if the development envisioned in the General Plan Update requires voter approval, it can be
safely assumed that the existing manufacturing uses will remain in place throughout the
foreseeable future.
SoBECA Overlay
The current General Plan designation for the SoBECA area is General Commercial and Light
Industrial. The SoBECA Overlay allows for up to a total of 450 residential units to be developed
at a maximum density of 40 -units per acre. The addition of high density residential
development is intended to further the goal of creating an innovative, eclectic and unique mix
of uses in the SoBECA area. The residential population base is anticipated to provide additional
support for the local incubator -type businesses that are already located in the area.
Given the site characteristics in the SoBECA area, it is anticipated that mixed-use development
will not be large scale. If the inclusion of residential development triggers a voter -approval
requirement, it is unlikely that the types of developers that will be attracted to the area will
have the risk profile or the financial capacity to go through an entitlement process that includes
a vote of the people. Instead, it should be anticipated that development will be focused on a
mix of uses that do not trigger the Initiative's voter -approval requirements.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 28
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
2. Development of Vacant Land
Costa Mesa is currently 99% built out. The two largest remaining vacant parcels in Costa Mesa
are the Segerstrom Home Ranch site and Sakioka Site — Lot 2. Both of these properties are
located in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area.
Segerstrom Home Ranch Site
Under the requirements imposed by the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, the property can be
developed with approximately 759,000 square feet of office and office -related uses. However,
in 2016, the City created a specific site floor area ratio (FAR) that increased the allowable
development intensity to .64:1. This allows for up to 1.2 million square feet of building area.
The site specific FAR allowance explicitly prohibits the inclusion of residential development on
the property. In addition, the maximum intensity is limited by the trip budget that was set at
1,860 during the morning peak, and 1,788 during the evening peak.
It is clear that the Segerstrom Home Ranch development will be a major economic driver in
Costa Mesa. It is difficult to assess how the property owner will proceed if it is ultimately
determined that the FAR allowance provided in 2016 is subject to the voter -approval
requirements imposed by the Initiative.
Sakioka Site — Lot 2
The scope of development allowed for the Sakioka Site — Lot 2 is defined in a Development
Agreement that identifies the maximum building area, FAR, trip budget and allowable uses.
However, the allowable development intensity is dictated by the trip budget that was
established by the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.
The General Plan Update's land use recommendation for the property is for 660 residential
units, which includes a 25% state density bonus.34 In return for this density bonus, the project
must include an affordable housing component that comports with state law. The currently
proposed land use requires an amendment to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. If this
triggers a voter -approval requirement, it is unclear what actions the property owner will take in
regard to the development of the site.
34 The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan was adopted in 1994. At that time the state density bonus was set at 25%.
In 2005, the state modified the statute to provide a sliding scale of bonus density tied to the percentage of
affordable units that are provided.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 29
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
3. Fairview Developmental Center
The current General Plan Designation for the Fairview property is Public/Institutional. In
February 2016, the State of California Department of Development Services initiated a process
that will lead to the closure of the Fairview Developmental Center. As part of that process, the
State and the City devised a proposed new land use designation for the property.
The proposed land use designation is called Multi -Use Center General Plan. The mix of uses
identified in the General Plan Update consist of 500 residential units, 25.6 acres of park and
open space, and 51.6 acres of Institutional & Recreation Uses. However, the land use
designation, and corresponding Zoning District, will require a Master Plan for any future
development projects, whether or not the property continues to be owned by the State or the
property is sold to a private entity.
If the Initiative passes, it is possible that the future development of the Fairview site will be
subject to voter approval. This adds a significant amount of entitlement risk, and potential
delays in the development process, for this 102.5 -acre property. This could also delay the
creation of the park, open space and recreation uses identified in the General Plan Update.
C. Fiscal and Economic Impact
In a draft report dated February 26, 2016, the Natelson Dale Group evaluated the fiscal impacts
generated by the buildout under the General Plan Update. As part of that draft report, the
Natelson Dale Group identified the assumptions and calculation methodology that was applied
to estimate the fiscal impacts associated with the land uses included in the General Plan
Update.
Based on the assumptions and calculation methodology applied in the draft Natelson Dale
Group fiscal impact report, KMA prepared fiscal impact analyses for the Overlay areas and sites
described in the preceding section of this report. In addition, KMA prepared economic impact
analyses for the Overlay area and sites using the following data sources:
The Regional Input -Output Modeling System (RIMS II) for Orange County (2007/2013);
and
2. The California Employment Development Department Occupational Employment
Statistics Survey, May 2015.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 30
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
The KMA analyses are detailed in Attachment V — Exhibits A — H, and the results are
summarized in the following tables:
1. Residential Overlay Areas
Scope of Development
Residential Units
Retail Square Feet
Industrial Square Feet
Population (FTE's) 31
Net Annual Fiscal Impact 36
Change from Current General Plan
Direct & Indirect Economic Impact
Change in Jobs
Change in Earnings
Scope of Development
Residential Units
Retail Square Feet
Population (FTE's)
Net Annual Fiscal Impact
Change from Current General Plan
Direct & Indirect Economic Impact
Change in Jobs
Change in Earnings
Harbor Mixed -Use Overlay SoBECA
Current General Plan Current General Plan
General Plan Update General Plan Update
13
491
237
450
337,500
321,000
147,300
291,100
381
2,744
458,600
3,165
195
1,390
305
1,125
$1,390,000
$1,792,000
$696,400
$441,900
$402,000
($254,500)
(9) (487)
($364,000) ($16,508,000)
Residential Incentive - Harbor
Current General Plan
General Plan Update
Residential Incentive - Newport
Current General Plan
General Plan Update
84
1,063
237
1,210
356,800
178,400
582,200
291,100
381
2,744
872
3,165
$157,000
$1,772,000
$2,609,000
$2,376,000
$1,615,000
($233,800)
(102) (165)
($3,869,000) ($6,327,000)
3s FTE = Full -Time Equivalent.
36 Net Annual Fiscal Impact = Estimated General Fund Revenues minus General Fund Expenditures.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 31
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
As can be seen in the preceding tables, the General Plan Update development scopes all
generate net annual General Fund revenues. Moreover, in both the Harbor Boulevard Mixed -
Use Overlay and the Residential Incentive — Harbor areas, the net annual General Fund
revenues are higher for the General Plan Update than the estimates for the current General
Plan.
As would be expected, the replacement of commercial development with residential
development has a negative impact on the jobs and earnings generated by development in
Costa Mesa. This reduction ranges from nine to 165 jobs, and from $364,500 to $6.3 million in
earnings. However, the policy decision was made to provide the opportunity for residential
development on the boulevards in order to ameliorate the existing underutilized and blighted
properties.
2. LA Times Site (Overlay Area)
The General Plan Update calls for the existing industrial land use to be replaced by retail and
office development. This modification results in an increase in net General Fund revenues that
is estimated at $631,700 per year. In addition, the modification is projected to generate 156
additional jobs and over $40 million in additional earnings.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 32
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
LA Times Site
Current
General Plan
General Plan
Update
Scope of Development
Residential Units
Retail Square Feet
165,800
Office Square Feet
458,600
Industrial Square Feet
374,000
Population (FTE's)
299
417
Net Annual Fiscal Impact
$66,700
$698,400
Change from Current General Plan
$631,700
Direct & Indirect Economic Impact
Change in Jobs
156
Change in Earnings
$40,026,000
The General Plan Update calls for the existing industrial land use to be replaced by retail and
office development. This modification results in an increase in net General Fund revenues that
is estimated at $631,700 per year. In addition, the modification is projected to generate 156
additional jobs and over $40 million in additional earnings.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 32
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
3. Vacant Sites
As shown in the preceding table, the large-scale office development on the Segerstrom Home
Ranch site dis not projected to generate a significant amount of net annual General Fund
revenues. This is attributable to the fact that the primary General Fund revenue source is the
share of the property tax received by the City. To generate significantly greater General Fund
revenues, the project would need to include retail and/or hotel space.
The Sakioka Site — Lot 2 and the Fairview site are both designated to be developed with
residential uses. As can be seen in the table, both sites are anticipated to generate positive net
annual General Fund revenues, ranging from $576,400 to $601,000 per year. Given the lack of
commercial development on both sites, no increase in jobs or increase in earnings are
projected for the sites.
4. Conclusion — Fiscal and Economic Impact Analyses
The results of the fiscal impact analyses indicate that the focus areas in the General Plan
Update are all projected to generate net positive annual General Fund revenues to the City. In
addition, the Overlay areas and sites that include commercial uses are projected to increase the
number of jobs and the earnings generated by workers in Costa Mesa.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 33
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
Segerstrom
Sakioka Site—
Home Ranch
Lot 2
Fairview
Scope of Development
Residential Units
660
500
Retail Square Feet
Office Square Feet
1,200,000
Population (FTE's)
883
1,650
1,383
Net Annual Fiscal Impact
$56,700
$601,000
$576,400
Change from Current General Plan
Direct & Indirect Economic Impact
Increase in Jobs
1,516
0
0
Increase in Earnings
$139,781,000
$0
$0
As shown in the preceding table, the large-scale office development on the Segerstrom Home
Ranch site dis not projected to generate a significant amount of net annual General Fund
revenues. This is attributable to the fact that the primary General Fund revenue source is the
share of the property tax received by the City. To generate significantly greater General Fund
revenues, the project would need to include retail and/or hotel space.
The Sakioka Site — Lot 2 and the Fairview site are both designated to be developed with
residential uses. As can be seen in the table, both sites are anticipated to generate positive net
annual General Fund revenues, ranging from $576,400 to $601,000 per year. Given the lack of
commercial development on both sites, no increase in jobs or increase in earnings are
projected for the sites.
4. Conclusion — Fiscal and Economic Impact Analyses
The results of the fiscal impact analyses indicate that the focus areas in the General Plan
Update are all projected to generate net positive annual General Fund revenues to the City. In
addition, the Overlay areas and sites that include commercial uses are projected to increase the
number of jobs and the earnings generated by workers in Costa Mesa.
Election Code Section 9212 Report Page 33
An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects
ATTACHMENT I
LAND USE AND TRIPS ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT I
LAND USE CHANGES
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
Unit of
Existing
Current General
Updated General
Land Use Measurement
Conditions
Plan Amount
Plan Amount
I. Residential
Low Density Residential
DU
14,210
14,788
14,791
Medium Density Residential
DU
4,370
4,791
4,992
High Density Residential
DU
23,593
28,830
31,661
Age Qualified Housing
DU
450
450
450
Total Residential
42,623
48,859
51,894
Increase/(Decrease) from Current General Plan Amount
3,035
II. Office
General Office
TSF
7,112
8,820
10,675
Medical Office
TSF
112
112
112
Total Office
7,224
8,932
10,787
Increase/(Decrease) from Current General Plan Amount
1,855
III. Commercial
General Commercial
TSF
5,601
7,337
7,299
Regional Commercial
TSF
4,140
4,640
4,640
Total Commercial
9,741
11,977
11,939
Increase/(Decrease) from Current General Plan Amount
(38)
IV. Light Industrial
TSF
13,087
13,108
12,704
Increase/(Decrease) from Current General Plan Amount
(404)
V. Lodging
Hotel
Room
1,877
2,077
2,077
Motel
Room
2,272
2,272
946
Total Lodging
4,149
4,349
3,023
Increase/(Decrease) from Current General Plan Amount
(1,326)
VI. Auto Dealership
TSF
491
491
491
Increase/(Decrease) from Current General Plan Amount
0
VII. Public, Religious & Cultural Uses
City Hall
TSF
133
133
133
Performance Theater
TSF
585
691
691
Religious Facility
TSF
555
555
555
Museum
TSF
140
140
Total Public, Religious & Cultural Uses
1,273
1,519
1,519
Increase/(Decrease) from Current General Plan Amount
0
VIII. Health Care Facilities
Convalescent Care
Bed
448
448
448
Hospital
Bed
472
472
122
Total Health Care Facilities
920
920
570
Increase/(Decrease) from Current General Plan Amount
(350)
Source: City of Costa Mesa
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; GP Use Comp
ATTACHMENT I
LAND USE CHANGES
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
Unit of Existing Current General Updated General
Land Use Measurement Conditions Plan Amount Plan Amount
IX. Educational Facilities
Elementary/Middle School
High School
College/University
Total Educational Facilities
Increase/(Decrease) from Current General Plan Amount
X. Uses Measured by the Acre
Golf Course
Public Facility
Fairgrounds
Passive Park
Agriculture
Vacant
Total Uses Measured by the Acre
Increase/(Decrease) from Current General Plan Amount
Student
7,385
8,067
8,067
Student
4,590
4,998
4,998
Student
25,990
26,286
26,286
37,965
39,351
39,351
0
Acre
535
535
535
Acre
176
176
228
Acre
150
150
150
Acre
592
592
618
Acre
72
0
0
Acre
18
6
6
1,543
1,459
1,537
78
XI. Storage TSF
Increase/(Decrease) from Current General Plan Amount
Abbreviations
DU - Dwelling Unit
TSF - Thousands of Square Feet
Source: City of Costa Mesa
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; GP Use Comp
1,171 877 530
(347)
ATTACHMENT I - TABLE 2
TRIP GENERATION
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
Existing Current General Updated General
Conditions Plan Amount Plan Amount
Trip Generation (Daily) 1,018,790 1,229,125 1,244,140
II. Increase/(Decrease) from Current General Plan Amount
III. Percentage Change from Current General Plan Amount
Source: City of Costa Mesa
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; GP Traffic Comp
15,015
1.2%
ATTACHMENT II
MAP OF MAJOR CHANGES IN LAND USES 2007 - 2015
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
l
MacArthur Blvd.
SantaAna
owl�r
'
n
1 �
liika
'�
■
- ■
■■r
r�
_■■1
o.�
n�
r
3
�
��
�
■'
1�
.,
.
-
ege
Arlington Dr.
00,10
Fairview
Park
OC Fair &
Event Center
00""
55
albe"RT==
-
■MINI
5 ����n�
,l%
Park R m1m
No,
lip,
=J
III - �■
� _ .�: _.
_ _
city of
Newport
Beach
15th St. /
Pacific Ocean
7
sfh
IL -
City Boundaries Source: City of Costa Mesa, 2015.
Costa Mesa City Boundary
Feet
Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence 11 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
ATTACHMENT III
SUMMARIES OF CALIFORNIA GROWTH MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
CITY OF ALAMEDA - MEASURE A —1973
Measure A prohibited multiple dwelling units to be constructed anywhere in the City of
Alameda. Measure A was amended in April 1986 to allow multifamily units that were
destroyed by fire or other disaster to be replaced. Measure A was amended in 1991 to
establish a minimum residential lot size of 2,000 square feet. In July 2011, the City Council
adopted an ordinance to create new zoning districts that allow for the development of
multifamily homes. This was enacted so that the City of Alameda could obtain a certified
Housing Element.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA — MEASURE D —1980
Measure D was approved by the voters in November 2000.
Measure D created a urban growth boundary around the cities of Pleasanton, Dublin and
Livermore. Under Measure D, the County may not approve urban development outside the
Urban Growth Boundary, or to subdivide farmland into parcels smaller than 100 acres. This
requirement was also imposed on the valley between Castro Valley and Pleasanton Ridge. Any
change to the changes in policies called for in Measure D require a countywide vote of the
people.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY — MEASURE N —1999
Measure N was approved by the voters in November 1999. The Measure became effective
January 1, 2000.
Measure N required the City to readopt the goals and policies of the 1991 Land Use Element; to
readopt the land use designations and land use map included in the 1998 Land Use Element;
and to prohibit any change to the two -unit per acre density and 18,000 square foot minimum
lot size for properties zoned F -SF (Single Family Residential). Any changes to these
requirements require a vote of the people. The initiative requirements remain in place until
January 21, 2021.
Election Code 9212 Report Page 2
Summaries of California Growth Management Initiatives
CITY OF DUBLIN — MEASURE M — 2000
Measure M required a Resolution to be adopted to amend the City of Dublin General Plan to
establish an Urban Limit Line in the Western Extended Planning Area for a 30 -year period.
Measure M prohibited residential development on preserved open space located in the Dublin
Hills. Any change to the Urban Limit Line requires a vote of the people.
CITY OF ENCINITAS — PROPOSITION A — 2013
Proposition A was approved by the voters on June 18, 2013. The initiative became effective on
July 21, 2013.
Proposition A requires a vote of the people when publicly or privately initiated "Major
Amendments" are proposed to a "Planning Policy Document". Planning Policy Documents are
defined as the Land Use Element and Land Use Policy Maps of the General Plan; the Zoning
Code and Zoning Map; and specific plan or development agreement. Major Amendments are
defined as:
Increases in the number of dwelling units on a residential lot;
2. Increases in the number of separate parcels that may be created from an existing parcel;
3. Changes in identified zone types;
4. Changes from residential land use to non-residential land use;
5. Increases in the maximum height of development and how height is measured;
6. Increases in the maximum allowable commercial or retail square footage on a parcel;
and
7. An action that repeals any Planning Policy Document.
Proposition A imposes a citywide height limit of two stories or 30 feet for all buildings and
structures, except for medical complex development projects and specified building with a
public high school on a minimum 10 -acre site. Proposition A also preserves agricultural lands
and open space.
Election Code 9212 Report Page 3
Summaries of California Growth Management Initiatives
CITY OF ESCONDIDO — PROPOSITION S —1998
Proposition S requires a public vote for any General Plan Amendment or the creation of any
new Specific Plan Area if it involves an increase in the residential density; a change, alteration
or increase in the General Plan's residential land use categories; and a change of the land use
designation of any property from residential to industrial or commercial use. Proposition S
essentially asked the voters to affirm the General Plan in place as of 1997, and to require any
significant land use changes to a vote of the people.
After the initiative passed, the City attempted to identify property owners that wished to
change their land use designation. Initially, 16 property owners submitted proposals to modify
their land use designation. Eight developers subsequently withdrew from the process, and
chose to develop under the existing land use designation for their property. The other eight
property owners proceeded through the process and received City Council approval. These
projects included increasing the number of residential units on four properties from 146 units
to 284 units; three properties called for changing residential land to light industrial; and one
changed residential to commercial use. Each of the eight ballot measures failed. This had a
chilling effect on property owners applying for land use designation changes.
In May 2012, the City Council approved an update to the general plan, which was the first
comprehensive update since 1990. Proposition S requires that amendments to defined
components of the general plan can only occur after a vote of the people if the proposed
changes increase residential density, change the general plan land use categories, or change
certain residential designations to commercial or industrial designations. Proposition N was
placed on the November 2012 ballot, and it passed with a margin of 53% to 47%.
CITY OF HALF MOON BAY — MEASURE D —1999
In 1991 Measure A established a "Residential Dwelling Unit Building Permit Allocation System"
that limited population growth to 3% per year. In 1999 Measure D was adopted to reduce the
allowable annual population growth to 1% plus an additional .5% for residential development in
an area designated as the downtown. The allocation of units must comport with a defined
allocation system.
Election Code 9212 Report Page 4
Summaries of California Growth Management Initiatives
CITY OF LOMA LINDA — MEASURE V — 2006
Measure V limits development in the South Hills by limiting development to single-family
homes in clusters. No commercial recreational developments are allowed on the hills' northern
slopes. Residential units cannot exceed 35 feet in height and must be on lots that are at least
7,200 square feet. Measure V resulted in a new Growth Management Element of the General
Plan, which can only be modified with a vote of the people.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES — MEASURE U —1996
Proposition U reduced by 50% the allowable density on commercial and industrial properties
throughout Los Angeles, with the exception of Downtown. The focus of the initiative was to
eliminate the potential for large, high intensity buildings to be constructed adjacent to
residential neighborhoods.
CITY OF MARINA — MEASURE E — 2000
In 2000, Measure E established an Urban Growth Boundary. Measure E focused growth on the
property that had formerly been occupied by Fort Ord. Measure E was designed to prevent
urban sprawl.
CITY OF MORGAN HILL — MEASURE A — 2009
Since 1977, the City of Morgan Hill has used a Residential Development Control System (RDCS),
which is meant to ensure that new development can be served by existing infrastructure and
public services. Some components of the RCDS were established through a voter approved
ballot initiative. In 2009, the voters passed an initiative that provided an exemption to the
RDCS. This exemption allows up to 500 residential allotments for the 20 -block area designated
by the Downtown Specific Plan.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH — MEASURE S — 2000
Measure S was approved by the voters on November 7, 2000. The Measure became effective
on December 15, 2000.
Measure S is codified in City Charter Section 423. Measure S requires voter approval for any
"Major Amendment" to the General Plan. Major Amendment is defined as any project that
requires a General Plan amendment that increases traffic by more than 100 trips during the
Election Code 9212 Report Page 5
Summaries of California Growth Management Initiatives
peak hours in the morning or evening; 100 dwelling units; or 40,000 square feet of commercial
area. In addition, Measure S calculations must be applied to the cumulative amount of
development, that required an amendment to the General Plan, that has occurred within
defined Statistical Areas. This is measured by taking the proposed project plus 80% of the
increase associated with projects with amendments that were processed over the previous 10
years. Projects that were subject to votes of the people are excluded from the calculations.
Koll Development proposed an office tower in 2001, and in 2004 a five-star hotel was proposed
on the Balboa Peninsula. Both projects required a vote of the people, and both projects were
defeated at the ballot box. Subsequently, the Irvine Company withdrew a proposed expansion
to Newport Center and Pacific Life withdrew an office expansion project. No projects that
require a vote have been proposed since 2004.
On July 25, 2006, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan. This
update reduced the allowable non-residential development by 449,499 square feet, increased
the allowable residential development by 1,166 dwelling units, and reduced peak hour trips by
1,121 in the morning and 958 in the evening. It was determined that this General Plan update
was subject to a vote of the people, and it was placed on the ballot as Measure V. A competing
measure that was called Measure X (Greenlight II) was placed on the ballot as well. In the
election, which was held on November 7, 2006, Measure X failed and Measure V passed by a
54% to 46% margin.
CITY OF PLEASANTON — MEASURE PP — 2008
Measure PP prohibits residential units to be constructed on slopes of 25% or greater, or within
100 vertical feet of a ridgeline. Housing developments with 10 or fewer units are exempt from
the Measure PP requirements. After January 1, 2007, properties cannot be subdivided in any
way to become exempt from this requirement.
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE — MEASURE N — 2006
The City Council placed Measure N on the ballot. The Measure clarifies a 1994 ballot measure
that limits most new structures to a maximum of 20 feet or one story. The clarification states
that the maximum is both one story and 20 feet, with identified exceptions for larger lots and
commercial development.
Election Code 9212 Report Page 6
Summaries of California Growth Management Initiatives
CITY OF REDLANDS - MEASURE U -1997
Measure U was approved by the voters on November 4, 1997, certified on December 2, 1997,
and became effective on December 12, 1997. Measure U added a section to the City's General
Plan called "Principles of Managed Development". This section included the following
requirements:
Development projects must pay 100% of their pro rata share of the cost of
infrastructure and services needs generated by the project.
2. Every project that requires a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Subdivision
Map; Specific Plan, or for projects larger than 5,000 square feet, a Conditional Use
Permit, is required to submit a socio-economic analysis and cost -benefit analysis.
Project approval is dependent on the study finding that the project will not create
unmitigated physical blight or overburden City services, and that the City benefits out
weigh the costs. With a 4/5 vote, the City Council can approve a development project
that does not meet the socio-economic test if they find that the benefits to the City
outweigh the negative socio-economic effects that may result.
3. Development within the City's planning area and sphere of influence must conform to
the development standards imposed within the City.
4. The density standards imposed on residential development cannot be increased, and no
new residential land use classification can be added without a vote of the people. No
transfer of development rights is permitted with the exception of single-family
residential, which can be transferred to create or preserve agricultural, open space,
school or park uses.
5. Agricultural land is to be preserved to the greatest extent possible consistent with
Proposition R and Measure N that were passed in 1978 and 1987, respectively.
6. Development in San Timoteo must preserve the area in as natural a state as possible.
7. Limitations on traffic levels of service, noise levels and the size of billboards are
imposed.
Exemptions to the requirements are provided to the following:
Any project that had a vested right prior to the Effective Date of Measure U;
Election Code 9212 Report Page 7
Summaries of California Growth Management Initiatives
2. Defined "Special Categories of Development"; and
3. Uses that directly further the institutional purposes of churches, hospitals, schools and
identified organizations are exempt from traffic level service requirements and the
socio-economic study requirement.
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH — MEASURE DD - 2008
Measure DD was approved by the voters on November 4, 2008. Measure DD went into effect
on December 16, 2008.
Measure DD is codified in City Charter Section 27. Measure DD requires voter approval for any
"Major Change in Allowable Land Use" to the General Plan, including its local coastal element
and the City's zoning ordinance. "Significant Increase" is defined as any project that requires a
General Plan amendment that increases traffic by more than 150 trips during the peak hours in
the morning or evening; the density increase generated by the project produces more than 25
dwelling units; or 40,000 square feet of commercial area. In addition, Measure DD calculations
must be applied to the cumulative amount of development, that required an amendment to
the General Plan, that occurred within the same neighborhood within the preceding eight
years. Neighborhood is defined as all properties located either entirely or partially within 1,000
feet of any parcel or lot that is subject to a proposed change in allowable land use.
In November 2010, the City placed Measure G on the ballot. Measure G was a proposed
change to the Redondo Beach Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and the Zoning Ordinance for the Coastal
Plan. The amendment called for major changes in existing policies and development standards.
The modifications to the LCP and the Zoning Ordinance allowed for 400,000 square feet of
development in the harbor area; 540,000 square feet of development along Catalina Avenue,
and the continuation of the AES power plant and the addition of a desalination plant.
Measure G was approved by the voters in November 2010. In October 2012, the City Council
selected a developer to undertake the development of a large-scale mixed-use project at King
Harbor. In February 2016, a citizens group commenced a signature drive to place an initiative
on the ballot to impose stricter limits on development than were imposed by Measure G.
Election Code 9212 Report Page 8
Summaries of California Growth Management Initiatives
CITY OF RIVERSIDE — PROPOSITION R - 1979 AND PROPOSITION C —1987
Proposition C was placed on the ballot in 1987 to amend the requirements imposed by
Proposition R, which was adopted in in 1979. Proposition C was approved by the voters in
November 1987, and also went into effect in November 1987.
Proposition R set forth goals and policies for development in a 755 -acre area defined and
named the La Sierra Lands. In general, Proposition R required the City to apply residential
agricultural and residential conservation zoning classifications to the La Sierra Lands. In 1987,
Proposition C required the City to adopt a Specific Plan for the La Sierra Lands and further
established planning objectives for the Specific Plan. Proposition C also modified the
requirements imposed by Proposition R, to delete City Council authority to amend the
Ordinance with a 2/3 vote. The modification required any amendment or repeal to the
Ordinance to be subject to a vote of the people.
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA — MEASURE E —1989
Measure E was approved by the voters in November 1989. Measure E went into effect on
December 6, 1989. Measure E is codified in City Charter Section 1508. Measure E limits the
amount of new non-residential development within the City to 3 million square feet until 2010.
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ — MEASURE J —1978
Measure J was approved by the voters on June 8, 1978. Measure J called for the County to
adopt a strong, comprehensive growth management program. Measure J required the Board
of Supervisors to pass an implementing program within six months of the Measure's passage.
The Measure imposed a requirement that the Board of Supervisors annually set a population
growth rate that reflects the County's fair share of the State's growth. Measure J also required
the protection of agricultural land, the adoption of an urban/rural boundary and the protection
of natural resources. The implementation of Measure J also included a requirement that
residential projects with more than five units are required to set-aside 15% of the units for low
and moderate income households.
Election Code 9212 Report Page 9
Summaries of California Growth Management Initiatives
CITY OF SANTA PAULA - MEASURE L 2006
Measure L-6 was approved by the voters on November 7, 2006.
Measure L-6 resulted in an amendment to the Land use Element of the City's General Plan to
subject the following to a vote of the people:
Through December 31, 2025, to allow the Land Use Element to be amended to either
increase the residential or commercial density, or to intensify land use; and
2. When a development or land use designation on land that either includes 81 or more
contiguous acres, or is contiguous to other land for which the City Council had amended
the Land Use Element at any time during the preceding five consecutive years when the
cumulative acreage exceeds 81 acres.
CITY OF SIERRA MADRE - MEASURE V - 2007
Measure V was approved by the voters on April 17, 2007, and went into effect on April 18,
2007.
Measure V limits projects, in the 30 -acre downtown core, to two stories and 30 feet in height.
Measure V limits residential development to 13 units per acre before consideration of the
density bonus allowed by California Government Code Sections 65915-65918. Any proposed
project that exceeds the defined limits requires voter approval.
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY - MEASURE N - 2012
Measure N was approved by the voters on November 6, 2012. Measure N extended the
"Managed Growth Plan" that regulates population growth by setting the maximum number of
residential building permits that can be issued at 292 units per year. Measure N is a successor
to two similar measures that were adopted in 1996 and 1986.
In general, the Managed Growth Plan cannot be amended or repealed without a vote of the
people. However, there is a procedure that allows for a 4/5 vote of the City Council following a
review by the Neighborhood Councils and the Planning Commission.
Election Code 9212 Report Page 10
Summaries of California Growth Management Initiatives
CITY OF SAN DIEGO - PROPOSITION A - 1985
Proposition A was approved by the voters in November 1985.
Proposition A requires a vote of the people before either of the following can occur:
The land use designation for any property cannot be changed from "future urbanizing'
in the Progress Guide and General Plan to any other land use designation; and
2. The provisions restricting development in the "Future Urbanizing Area" cannot be
amended.
Future Urbanizing Area is one of three planning areas designated by the City's General Plan and
Progress Guide. The Future Urbanizing Area consist of regions that are reserved fro agricultural
uses and open space. These areas accounted for most of the City's useable, undeveloped land.
During the 10 years following the passage of Proposition A, three measures to approve
development were placed on the ballot, and one of these measures passed. Between 1996 and
1998, nine developments were placed on the ballot and seven passed. Since 1998, no
developments have been placed on the ballot.
The Future Urbanizing Area designation is an interim designation designed to prevent
premature development. The General Plan anticipated that over time the Future Urbanizing
Area designation would be shifted to the planned urbanizing tier to accommodate the demand
for growth. In 1992, the City adopted the North City Future Urbanizing Area Framework Plan.
In 1994, a public vote approved a phase shift to precede completion of subarea plans to move
to the planned urbanizing tier. This Plan recognized the impact uncertainty about future land
use intensity and location have on sizing and financing an urban level of facilities and services.
COUNTY OF VENTURA - SOAR INITIATIVE -1998
The County SOAR (Save Open -Space and Agricultural Resources) initiative was enacted on
November 3, 1998. The initiative requires countywide voter approval before the Ventura
County Board of Supervisors can rezone for development any unincorporated land designated
under the County General Plan as open space, agricultural or rural. Voter approval is also
needed for changes to a General Plan goals or policies related to those land -use designations.
The SOAR regulations expire at the end of 2020. However, a campaign has commenced
signature collection for an initiative to place an extension of the SOAR through 2050.
Election Code 9212 Report Page 11
Summaries of California Growth Management Initiatives
ATTACHMENT IV
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT IV: EXHIBIT A
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
PROPERTY SALES DATA
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Sales Comps
ATTACHMENT IV: EXHIBIT A
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
PROPERTY SALES DATA
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
Vacant Land Sales
2101 Harbor Blvd
1/14/2016
8,773
$895,000
$102
1967
840
$1,065
Auto Repair
2076 Placentia Ave
Price Per SF
Land Use
Address
Sale Date
Land Area (SF)
Sales Price
Land
Commercial
2026 Placentia Ave
10/31/2014
33,106
$2,500,000
$76
Commercial
125 E. Baker St
9/17/2014
182,952
$12,300,000
$67
Industrial
1239 Victoria St
8/31/2015
75,446
$5,500,000
$73
Industrial
3370 Harbor Blvd
8/10/2015
174,240
$6,300,000
$36
Industrial
2025 Placentia Ave
4/8/2014
40,293
$2,024,000
$50
Residential
2880 Mesa Verde Dr E
7/1/2015
90,169
$4,150,000
$46
Residential
2015 Anaheim Ave
6/5/2014
61,855
$5,000,000
$81
II. Improved Retail Property Sales
Building Type Address
Weighted Average $57
Price Per SF Price/SF
Sale Date Land Area (SF) Sales Price Land Year Built Rentable Area Rentable Area
Fast Food
2101 Harbor Blvd
1/14/2016
8,773
$895,000
$102
1967
840
$1,065
Auto Repair
2076 Placentia Ave
10/28/2015
17,145
$1,775,000
$104
1969
6,900
$257
Freestanding Retail
1603 Superior Ave
9/8/2015
16,640
$1,775,000
$107
1647
9,500
$187
Auto Repair
322 E. 17th St
6/30/2015
10,751
$2,500,000
$233
1969
3,500
$714
Retail Storefront
2330-2334 Newport Blvd
6/23/2015
9,017
$1,295,000
$144
1956
3,790
$342
Freestanding Retail
840 W. 19th St
6/19/2015
8,712
$760,000
$87
1967
825
$921
Freestanding Retail
124 E. 17th St
6/2/2015
8,712
$1,550,000
$178
1961
2,340
$662
Auto Repair
3007-3013 Enterprise St
5/14/2015
30,827
$2,840,000
$92
1963
9,412
$302
Freestanding Retail
3089 Bristol St
5/12/2015
56,628
$6,150,000
$109
1969
40,000
$154
Auto Repair
1343 Logan Ave
5/12/2015
30,540
$1,875,000
$61
1960
12,020
$156
Freestanding Retail
2710 Harbor Blvd
4/15/2015
30,056
$3,850,000
$128
1972
11,136
$346
Weighted Average $111 $252
Note: Sales data from 3/22/2014 -312212016; Sales covering the City of Costa Mesa, Multi -property sales, non -arms length transactions, and transactions without a sales price were excluded.
Source: Costar 3/2016
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Sales Comps
ATTACHMENT IV: EXHIBIT B
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
PRO FORMA ANALYSIS: APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; PF_CS Page 9 of 65
ATTACHMENT IV: EXHIBIT B - TABLE 1
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Direct Costs
On -Site Costs
Structured Parking
Residential Building Costs
Contractor/DC Contingency Allowance
Total Direct Costs
II. Indirect Costs
Arch, Engineering & Consulting
Public Permits & Fees
Taxes, Legal & Accounting
Insurance
Marketing/ Leasing
Developer Fee
Soft Cost Contingency Allowance
Total Indirect Costs
III. Financing Costs
Interest During Construction
Land
Construction
Loan Origination Fees
Total Financing Costs
180,774 Sf
500 Spaces
228,275 Sf of GBA
14.0% Other Direct Costs
8.0% Direct Costs
1 225 Units
2.0% Direct Costs
225 Units
225 Units
5.0% Direct Costs
5.0% Other Indirect Cost
Z 18,452,000 Cost
3 $52,512,000 Cost
4 $66,234,000 Loan
$7.00 /Sf of Land
$15,000 /Space
$100 /Sf
$1,265,000
7,500,000
22,828,000
4,423,000
$2,881,000
$36,016,000
$15,000 /Unit 3,375,000
720,000
$2,500 /Unit 563,000
$500 /Unit 113,000
1,801,000
Costs 473,000
$9,926,000
7.0% Interest 1,937,000
7.0% Interest 3,308,000
2.00 Points 1,325,000
$6,570,000
IV. Total Construction Cost 228,275 Sf of GBA $230 /Sf $52,512,000
1 Based on typical residential public permits and fees costs.
Z Assumes an 18 month construction period and a 100% average outstanding balance.
3 Assumes an 18 month construction period and a 60% average outstanding balance.
4 Based on a 70% loan to value ratio. The value is calculated based on a 4.5% capitalization rate
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; PF_CS Page 10 of 65
ATTACHMENT IV: EXHIBIT B - TABLE 2
STABILIZED NET OPERATING INCOME
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Rental Income 1
1 Bdrm/1 Bath
140
Units @
$2,250
/Month
$3,780,000
2 Bdrm/2 Bath
85
Units @
$3,025
/Month
3,085,500
Laundry/Miscellaneous Income
225
Units @
$15
/Month
40,500
Gross Income
$6,906,000
(Less) Vacancy & Collection Allowance
5.0%
Gross Income
(345,300)
Residential Effective Gross Income
$6,560,700
II. Operating Expenses
General Operating Expenses
225
Units @
$4,000
/Unit
$900,000
Property Management
5%
Residential Effective Gross Income
328,000
Property Taxes Z
225
Units @
$4,627
/Unit
1,041,000
Reserves Deposits
225
Units @
$150
/Unit
33,800
Total Operating Expenses
225
Units @
($8,777)
/Unit
($2,302,800)
IV. Stabilized Net Operating Income
$4,257,900
1 Rents range from $2.75 to $3.00/Sf of GLA.
Z Based on a 4.5% capitalization rate and a 1.1% property tax rate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; PF_CS Page 11 of 65
ATTACHMENT IV: EXHIBIT B - TABLE 3
ESTIMATED LAND VALUE
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Supportable Private Investment
Stabilized Net Operating Income See ATTACHMENT IV: EXHIBIT B - TABLE 2 $4,257,900
Threshold Return on Cost 6.0%
Total Supportable Private Investment
$70,965,000
II. Total Construction Cost See ATTACHMENT IV: EXHIBIT B - TABLE 1 $52,512,000
III. I Estimated Land Value 180,774 Sf of Land $102 /Sf of Land $18,453,000
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; PF_CS
Page 12 of 65
ATTACHMENT V
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT A-1
HARBOR MIXED-USE OVERLAY: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Harbor MU_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT A-1- TABLE 1
POPULATION ESTIMATES (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS)
HARBOR MIXED-USE OVERLAY: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Residential Population
Number of Units
Average Number of Persons Per Unit
Total Residential Population
II. Employment Population
A. General Retail
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated General Retail Employees
B. Office
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated Office Employees
Total Employment Population
III. Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
Number of Rooms
Visitors Per Room
Average Occupancy Rate
Estimated Number of Visitors
Visitor Conversion to Resident Equivalent
Total Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
7
13
2.50
337,500
500
675
24%
162
z 326
0
24%
0
1.75
40%
0
75%
33
162
0
IV. ITotal Population (Full -Time Equivalents) 195
1 General Plan measures against net leasable area - 10% discount from gross floor area.
2 General Plan measures against the gross floor area minus an 8% vacancy rate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Harbor MU_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT A-1- TABLE 2
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
HARBOR MIXED-USE OVERLAY: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Property Tax Revenue
Assessed Value
195
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$1,900
Residential
13
Units
$675,000
/Unit
$8,775,000
General Retail
337,500
Sq. Ft.
$200
/Sq. Ft.
67,500,000
Office
0
Sq. Ft.
$150
/Sq. Ft.
0
Motels
0
Rooms
$50,000
/Room
0
Total Assessed Value
33
Residents
$1.26
/Person
$76,275,000
Property Tax Rate
195
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
1.25%
Total Property Tax Revenue
33
Residents
$18.30
/Person
$953,400
City Share of Property Tax Revenue
33
Residents
$9.44
/Person
14.65%
Total Property Tax Revenue
$139,700
II. Sales Tax Revenue
Taxable Sales
Taxable Sales Generated by Residents 1 13 Units $11,879 /Unit $154,400
General Commercial 337,500 Sq. Ft. $400 /Sq. Ft. 135,000,000
Total Taxable Sales $135,154,400
Sales Tax Rate 1.0%
Total Sales Tax Revenue $1,351,500
III. Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Room Sales Revenue
Transient Occupancy Rate
0 Rooms $12,775 /Room
$0
8.0%
Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $0
IV. Other Revenues
Electric Franchise Fee
195
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$1,900
Cable Television Franchise Fee
33
Residents
$11.74
/Person
400
Gas Franchise Fee
195
R+E+V
$1.88
/Person
400
Solid Waste Hauler Franchise Fee
195
R+E+V
$14.63
/Person
2,900
Business License
162
Employees
$10.80
/Person
1,700
Licenses and Permits
33
Residents
$1.26
/Person
0
Fines & Forfeitures
195
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
1,700
Fees and Charges
33
Residents
$18.30
/Person
600
Other Government Agencies
33
Residents
$9.44
/Person
300
Total Other Revenues
$9,900
V. ITotal Annual General Fund Revenues
$1,501,100
1 Average household income is estimated based on the $675,000 for new High Density Residentialand 35% of income spent on housing expenses
Assumes that 30% of income is spent on retail goods; 70% of those sales are taxable; and 45% of the sales occur in existing Costa Mesa
establishments.
z Based on an average daily room rate of $50.00 and an average occupancy rate of 40%.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Harbor MU_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT A-1- TABLE 3
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, NET FISCAL IMPACT & ECONOMIC IMPACT
HARBOR MIXED-USE OVERLAY: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Annual Expenditures
Police
195
R+E+V
$305.75
/Person
$59,600
Fire
28.79
Incidents
$3,145
/Incident
90,500
Parks
33
Residents
$8.46
/Person
300
Development Services
195
R+E+V
$19.28
/Person
3,800
Public Services
195
R+E+V
$83.27
/Person
16,200
Administrative Overhead
32.68%
Other General Fund
Expenditures
55,700
Total Annual Expenditures
$110,800
II. Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual General Fund Revenues
(Less) Total Annual Expenditures
$1,501,100
($110,800)
Net Fiscal Impact $1,390,300
III. Economic Impact
A. Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs
General Retail
Office
162 Direct Jobs 1.1917 Multiplier 193
0 Direct Jobs 1.7165 Multiplier 0
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs 193
B. Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings
General Retail
Office
$33,000 Average Salary 1.3794 Multiplier $7,374,400
$89,400 Average Salary 1.7707 Multiplier 0
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings $7,374,400
Source for multipliers: Regional Input -Output Modeling System (RIMS II) - RIMS II Multipliers for Orange County (2007/2013).
Source for salaries: California Employment Development Department Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, May 2015. Direct & Indirect
Increase in Earnings estimated by multiplying the Direct Jobs times the Average Salary and the applicable Multiplier.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Harbor MU_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT A-2
HARBOR MIXED-USE OVERLAY: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Harbor MU_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT A-2 -TABLE 1
POPULATION ESTIMATES (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS)
HARBOR MIXED-USE OVERLAY: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Residential Population
Number of Units
Average Number of Persons Per Unit
Total Residential Population
II. Employment Population
A. General Retail
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated General Retail Employees
B. Office
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated Office Employees
Total Employment Population
III. Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
Number of Rooms
Visitors Per Room
Average Occupancy Rate
Estimated Number of Visitors
Visitor Conversion to Resident Equivalent
Total Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
9
491
2.50
321,000
500
642
24%
154
z 326
0
24%
0
1.75
40%
0
75%
1,228
154
0
IV. ITotal Population (Full -Time Equivalents) 1,382
1 General Plan measures against net leasable area - 10% discount from gross floor area.
2 General Plan measures against the gross floor area minus an 8% vacancy rate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Harbor MU_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT A-2 -TABLE 2
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
HARBOR MIXED-USE OVERLAY: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Property Tax Revenue
Assessed Value
1,382
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$13,200
Residential
491
Units
$675,000
/Unit
$331,425,000
General Retail
321,000
Sq. Ft.
$200
/Sq. Ft.
64,200,000
Office
0
Sq. Ft.
$150
/Sq. Ft.
0
Motels
0
Rooms
$50,000
/Room
0
Total Assessed Value
1,228
Residents
$1.26
/Person
$395,625,000
Property Tax Rate
1,382
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
1.25%
Total Property Tax Revenue
1,228
Residents
$18.30
/Person
$4,945,300
City Share of Property Tax Revenue
1,228
Residents
$9.44
/Person
14.65%
Total Property Tax Revenue
$724,700
II. Sales Tax Revenue
Taxable Sales
Taxable Sales Generated by Residents 1 491 Units $11,879 /Unit $5,832,800
General Commercial 321,000 Sq. Ft. $400 /Sq. Ft. 128,400,000
Total Taxable Sales $134,232,800
Sales Tax Rate 1.0%
Total Sales Tax Revenue $1,342,300
III. Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Room Sales Revenue
Transient Occupancy Rate
0 Rooms $12,775 /Room
$0
8.0%
Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $0
IV. Other Revenues
Electric Franchise Fee
1,382
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$13,200
Cable Television Franchise Fee
1,228
Residents
$11.74
/Person
14,400
Gas Franchise Fee
1,382
R+E+V
$1.88
/Person
2,600
Solid Waste Hauler Franchise Fee
1,382
R+E+V
$14.63
/Person
20,200
Business License
154
Employees
$10.80
/Person
1,700
Licenses and Permits
1,228
Residents
$1.26
/Person
1,500
Fines & Forfeitures
1,382
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
12,400
Fees and Charges
1,228
Residents
$18.30
/Person
22,500
Other Government Agencies
1,228
Residents
$9.44
/Person
11,600
Total Other Revenues
$100,100
V. ITotal Annual General Fund Revenues
$2,167,100
1 Average household income is estimated based on the $675,000 for new High Density Residentialand 35% of income spent on housing expenses
Assumes that 30% of income is spent on retail goods; 70% of those sales are taxable; and 45% of the sales occur in existing Costa Mesa
establishments.
z Based on an average daily room rate of $50.00 and an average occupancy rate of 40%.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Harbor MU_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT A-2 -TABLE 3
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, NET FISCAL IMPACT & ECONOMIC IMPACT
HARBOR MIXED-USE OVERLAY: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Annual Expenditures
Police
1,382
R+E+V
$305.75
/Person
$422,500
Fire
70.79
Incidents
$3,145
/Incident
222,600
Parks
1,228
Residents
$8.46
/Person
10,400
Development Services
1,382
R+E+V
$19.28
/Person
26,600
Public Services
1,382
R+E+V
$83.27
/Person
115,100
Administrative Overhead
32.68%
Other General Fund
Expenditures
260,500
Total Annual Expenditures
$374,700
II. Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual General Fund Revenues
(Less) Total Annual Expenditures
$2,167,100
($374,700)
Net Fiscal Impact $1,792,400
III. Economic Impact
A. Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs
General Retail
Office
154 Direct Jobs 1.1917 Multiplier 184
0 Direct Jobs 1.7165 Multiplier 0
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs 184
B. Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings
General Retail
Office
$33,000 Average Salary 1.3794 Multiplier $7,010,200
$89,400 Average Salary 1.7707 Multiplier 0
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings $7,010,200
Source for multipliers: Regional Input -Output Modeling System (RIMS II) - RIMS II Multipliers for Orange County (2007/2013).
Source for salaries: California Employment Development Department Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, May 2015. Direct & Indirect
Increase in Earnings estimated by multiplying the Direct Jobs times the Average Salary and the applicable Multiplier.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Harbor MU_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT B-1
RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVE - HARBOR: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_H_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT B-1 - TABLE 1
POPULATION ESTIMATES (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS)
RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVE - HARBOR: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Residential Population
Number of Units
Average Number of Persons Per Unit
Total Residential Population
II. Employment Population
A. General Retail
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated General Retail Employees
B. Office
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated Office Employees
Total Employment Population
III. Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
Number of Rooms
Visitors Per Room
Average Occupancy Rate
Estimated Number of Visitors
Visitor Conversion to Resident Equivalent
Total Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
7
84
2.50
356,800
500
714
24%
171
z 326
0
24%
0
1.75
40%
0
75%
210
171
0
IV. ITotal Population (Full -Time Equivalents) 381
1 General Plan measures against net leasable area - 10% discount from gross floor area.
2 General Plan measures against the gross floor area minus an 8% vacancy rate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_H_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT B-1 - TABLE 2
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVE - HARBOR: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Property Tax Revenue
Assessed Value
381
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$3,600
Residential
84
Units
$675,000
/Unit
$56,700,000
General Retail
356,800
Sq. Ft.
$200
/Sq. Ft.
71,360,000
Office
0
Sq. Ft.
$150
/Sq. Ft.
0
Motels
0
Rooms
$50,000
/Room
0
Total Assessed Value
210
Residents
$1.26
/Person
$128,060,000
Property Tax Rate
381
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
1.25%
Total Property Tax Revenue
210
Residents
$18.30
/Person
$1,600,800
City Share of Property Tax Revenue
210
Residents
$9.44
/Person
14.65%
Total Property Tax Revenue
$234,600
II. Sales Tax Revenue
Taxable Sales
Taxable Sales Generated by Residents 1 84 Units $11,879 /Unit $997,900
General Commercial 356,800 Sq. Ft. $400 /Sq. Ft. 142,720,000
Total Taxable Sales $143,717,900
Sales Tax Rate 1.0%
Total Sales Tax Revenue $1,437,200
III. Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Room Sales Revenue
Transient Occupancy Rate
0 Rooms $12,775 /Room
$0
8.0%
Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $0
IV. Other Revenues
Electric Franchise Fee
381
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$3,600
Cable Television Franchise Fee
210
Residents
$11.74
/Person
2,500
Gas Franchise Fee
381
R+E+V
$1.88
/Person
700
Solid Waste Hauler Franchise Fee
381
R+E+V
$14.63
/Person
5,600
Business License
171
Employees
$10.80
/Person
1,800
Licenses and Permits
210
Residents
$1.26
/Person
300
Fines & Forfeitures
381
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
3,400
Fees and Charges
210
Residents
$18.30
/Person
3,800
Other Government Agencies
210
Residents
$9.44
/Person
2,000
Total Other Revenues
$23,700
V. ITotal Annual General Fund Revenues
$1,695,500
1 Average household income is estimated based on the $675,000 for new High Density Residentialand 35% of income spent on housing expenses
Assumes that 30% of income is spent on retail goods; 70% of those sales are taxable; and 45% of the sales occur in existing Costa Mesa
establishments.
z Based on an average daily room rate of $50.00 and an average occupancy rate of 40%.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_H_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT B-1 - TABLE 3
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, NET FISCAL IMPACT & ECONOMIC IMPACT
RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVE - HARBOR: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Annual Expenditures
Police
381
R+E+V
$305.75
/Person
$116,500
Fire
36.81
Incidents
$3,145
/Incident
115,800
Parks
210
Residents
$8.46
/Person
1,800
Development Services
381
R+E+V
$19.28
/Person
7,300
Public Services
381
R+E+V
$83.27
/Person
31,700
Administrative Overhead
32.68%
Other General Fund
Expenditures
89,200
Total Annual Expenditures
$156,600
II. Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual General Fund Revenues
(Less) Total Annual Expenditures
$1,695,500
($156,600)
Net Fiscal Impact $1,538,900
III. Economic Impact
A. Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs
General Retail
Office
171 Direct Jobs 1.1917 Multiplier 204
0 Direct Jobs 1.7165 Multiplier 0
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs 204
B. Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings
General Retail
Office
$33,000 Average Salary 1.3794 Multiplier $7,784,100
$89,400 Average Salary 1.7707 Multiplier 0
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings $7,784,100
Source for multipliers: Regional Input -Output Modeling System (RIMS II) - RIMS II Multipliers for Orange County (2007/2013).
Source for salaries: California Employment Development Department Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, May 2015. Direct & Indirect
Increase in Earnings estimated by multiplying the Direct Jobs times the Average Salary and the applicable Multiplier.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_H_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT B-2
RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVE - HARBOR: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_H_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT B-2 - TABLE 1
POPULATION ESTIMATES (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS)
RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVE - HARBOR: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Residential Population
Number of Units
Average Number of Persons Per Unit
Total Residential Population
II. Employment Population
A. General Retail
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated General Retail Employees
B. Office
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated Office Employees
Total Employment Population
III. Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
Number of Rooms
Visitors Per Room
Average Occupancy Rate
Estimated Number of Visitors
Visitor Conversion to Resident Equivalent
Total Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
9
1,063
2.50
178,400
500
357
24%
86
z 326
0
24%
0
1.75
40%
0
75%
2,658
86
0
IV. ITotal Population (Full -Time Equivalents) 2,744
1 General Plan measures against net leasable area - 10% discount from gross floor area.
2 General Plan measures against the gross floor area minus an 8% vacancy rate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_H_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT B-2 - TABLE 2
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVE - HARBOR: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Property Tax Revenue
Assessed Value
2,744
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$26,300
Residential
1,063
Units
$675,000
/Unit
$717,525,000
General Retail
178,400
Sq. Ft.
$200
/Sq. Ft.
35,680,000
Office
0
Sq. Ft.
$150
/Sq. Ft.
0
Motels
0
Rooms
$50,000
/Room
0
Total Assessed Value
2,658
Residents
$1.26
/Person
$753,205,000
Property Tax Rate
2,744
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
1.25%
Total Property Tax Revenue
2,658
Residents
$18.30
/Person
$9,415,100
City Share of Property Tax Revenue
2,658
Residents
$9.44
/Person
14.65%
Total Property Tax Revenue
$1,379,700
II. Sales Tax Revenue
Taxable Sales
Taxable Sales Generated by Residents 1 1,063 Units $11,879 /Unit $12,627,800
General Commercial 178,400 Sq. Ft. $400 /Sq. Ft. 71,360,000
Total Taxable Sales $83,987,800
Sales Tax Rate 1.0%
Total Sales Tax Revenue $839,900
III. Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Room Sales Revenue
Transient Occupancy Rate
0 Rooms $12,775 /Room
$0
8.0%
Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $0
IV. Other Revenues
Electric Franchise Fee
2,744
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$26,300
Cable Television Franchise Fee
2,658
Residents
$11.74
/Person
31,200
Gas Franchise Fee
2,744
R+E+V
$1.88
/Person
5,200
Solid Waste Hauler Franchise Fee
2,744
R+E+V
$14.63
/Person
40,100
Business License
86
Employees
$10.80
/Person
900
Licenses and Permits
2,658
Residents
$1.26
/Person
3,300
Fines & Forfeitures
2,744
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
24,600
Fees and Charges
2,658
Residents
$18.30
/Person
48,600
Other Government Agencies
2,658
Residents
$9.44
/Person
25,100
Total Other Revenues
$205,300
V. ITotal Annual General Fund Revenues
$2,424,900
1 Average household income is estimated based on the $675,000 for new High Density Residentialand 35% of income spent on housing expenses
Assumes that 30% of income is spent on retail goods; 70% of those sales are taxable; and 45% of the sales occur in existing Costa Mesa
establishments.
z Based on an average daily room rate of $50.00 and an average occupancy rate of 40%.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_H_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT B-2 - TABLE 3
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, NET FISCAL IMPACT & ECONOMIC IMPACT
RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVE - HARBOR: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Annual Expenditures
Police
2,744
R+E+V
$305.75
/Person
$839,000
Fire
111.01
Incidents
$3,145
/Incident
349,100
Parks
2,658
Residents
$8.46
/Person
22,500
Development Services
2,744
R+E+V
$19.28
/Person
52,900
Public Services
2,744
R+E+V
$83.27
/Person
228,500
Administrative Overhead
32.68%
Other General Fund
Expenditures
487,600
Total Annual Expenditures
$653,000
II. Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual General Fund Revenues
(Less) Total Annual Expenditures
$2,424,900
($653,000)
Net Fiscal Impact $1,771,900
III. Economic Impact
A. Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs
General Retail
Office
86 Direct Jobs 1.1917 Multiplier 102
0 Direct Jobs 1.7165 Multiplier 0
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs 102
B. Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings
General Retail
Office
$33,000 Average Salary 1.3794 Multiplier $3,914,800
$89,400 Average Salary 1.7707 Multiplier 0
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings $3,914,800
Source for multipliers: Regional Input -Output Modeling System (RIMS II) - RIMS II Multipliers for Orange County (2007/2013).
Source for salaries: California Employment Development Department Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, May 2015. Direct & Indirect
Increase in Earnings estimated by multiplying the Direct Jobs times the Average Salary and the applicable Multiplier.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_H_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT C-1
RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVE - NEWPORT: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_N_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT C-1 - TABLE 1
POPULATION ESTIMATES (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS)
RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVE - NEWPORT: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Residential Population
Number of Units
Average Number of Persons Per Unit
Total Residential Population
II. Employment Population
A. General Retail
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated General Retail Employees
B. Office
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated Office Employees
Total Employment Population
III. Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
Number of Rooms
Visitors Per Room
Average Occupancy Rate
Estimated Number of Visitors
Visitor Conversion to Resident Equivalent
Total Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
7
237
2.50
582,200
500
1,164
24%
279
z 326
0
24%
0
1.75
40%
0
75%
593
279
0
IV. ITotal Population (Full -Time Equivalents) 872
1 General Plan measures against net leasable area - 10% discount from gross floor area.
2 General Plan measures against the gross floor area minus an 8% vacancy rate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_N_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT C-1 - TABLE 2
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVE - NEWPORT: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Property Tax Revenue
Assessed Value
872
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$8,300
Residential
237
Units
$675,000
/Unit
$159,975,000
General Retail
582,200
Sq. Ft.
$200
/Sq. Ft.
116,440,000
Office
0
Sq. Ft.
$150
/Sq. Ft.
0
Motels
0
Rooms
$50,000
/Room
0
Total Assessed Value
593
Residents
$1.26
/Person
$276,415,000
Property Tax Rate
872
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
1.25%
Total Property Tax Revenue
593
Residents
$18.30
/Person
$3,455,200
City Share of Property Tax Revenue
593
Residents
$9.44
/Person
14.65%
Total Property Tax Revenue
$506,300
II. Sales Tax Revenue
Taxable Sales
Taxable Sales Generated by Residents 1 237 Units $11,879 /Unit $2,815,400
General Commercial 582,200 Sq. Ft. $400 /Sq. Ft. 232,880,000
Total Taxable Sales $235,695,400
Sales Tax Rate 1.0%
Total Sales Tax Revenue $2,357,000
III. Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Room Sales Revenue
Transient Occupancy Rate
0 Rooms $12,775 /Room
$0
8.0%
Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $0
IV. Other Revenues
Electric Franchise Fee
872
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$8,300
Cable Television Franchise Fee
593
Residents
$11.74
/Person
7,000
Gas Franchise Fee
872
R+E+V
$1.88
/Person
1,600
Solid Waste Hauler Franchise Fee
872
R+E+V
$14.63
/Person
12,800
Business License
279
Employees
$10.80
/Person
3,000
Licenses and Permits
593
Residents
$1.26
/Person
700
Fines & Forfeitures
872
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
7,800
Fees and Charges
593
Residents
$18.30
/Person
10,900
Other Government Agencies
593
Residents
$9.44
/Person
5,600
Total Other Revenues
$57,700
V. ITotal Annual General Fund Revenues
$2,921,000
1 Average household income is estimated based on the $675,000 for new High Density Residentialand 35% of income spent on housing expenses
Assumes that 30% of income is spent on retail goods; 70% of those sales are taxable; and 45% of the sales occur in existing Costa Mesa
establishments.
z Based on an average daily room rate of $50.00 and an average occupancy rate of 40%.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_N_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT C-1 - TABLE 3
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, NET FISCAL IMPACT & ECONOMIC IMPACT
RESIDENTIAL INCENTIVE - NEWPORT: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Annual Expenditures
Police
872
R+E+V
$305.75
/Person
$266,600
Fire
69.12
Incidents
$3,145
/Incident
217,400
Parks
593
Residents
$8.46
/Person
5,000
Development Services
872
R+E+V
$19.28
/Person
16,800
Public Services
872
R+E+V
$83.27
/Person
72,600
Administrative Overhead
32.68%
Other General Fund
Expenditures
189,000
Total Annual Expenditures
$311,800
II. Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual General Fund Revenues
(Less) Total Annual Expenditures
$2,921,000
($311,800)
Net Fiscal Impact $2,609,200
III. Economic Impact
A. Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs
General Retail
Office
279 Direct Jobs 1.1917 Multiplier 332
0 Direct Jobs 1.7165 Multiplier 0
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs 332
B. Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings
General Retail
Office
$33,000 Average Salary 1.3794 Multiplier $12,700,400
$89,400 Average Salary 1.7707 Multiplier 0
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings $12,700,400
Source for multipliers: Regional Input -Output Modeling System (RIMS II) - RIMS II Multipliers for Orange County (2007/2013).
Source for salaries: California Employment Development Department Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, May 2015. Direct & Indirect
Increase in Earnings estimated by multiplying the Direct Jobs times the Average Salary and the applicable Multiplier.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_N_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT C-2
LA TIMES SITE: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_N_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT C-2 - TABLE 1
POPULATION ESTIMATES (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS)
LA TIMES SITE: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Residential Population
Number of Units
Average Number of Persons Per Unit
Total Residential Population
II. Employment Population
A. General Retail
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated General Retail Employees
B. Office
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated Office Employees
Total Employment Population
III. Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
Number of Rooms
Visitors Per Room
Average Occupancy Rate
Estimated Number of Visitors
Visitor Conversion to Resident Equivalent
Total Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
9
1,210
2.50
291,100
500
582
24%
140
z 326
0
24%
0
1.75
40%
0
75%
3,025
140
0
IV. ITotal Population (Full -Time Equivalents) 3,165
1 General Plan measures against net leasable area - 10% discount from gross floor area.
2 General Plan measures against the gross floor area minus an 8% vacancy rate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_N_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT C-2 - TABLE 2
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
LA TIMES SITE: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Property Tax Revenue
Assessed Value
3,165
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$30,300
Residential
1,210
Units
$675,000
/Unit
$816,750,000
General Retail
291,100
Sq. Ft.
$200
/Sq. Ft.
58,220,000
Office
0
Sq. Ft.
$150
/Sq. Ft.
0
Motels
0
Rooms
$50,000
/Room
0
Total Assessed Value
3,025
Residents
$1.26
/Person
$874,970,000
Property Tax Rate
3,165
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
1.25%
Total Property Tax Revenue
3,025
Residents
$18.30
/Person
$10,937,100
City Share of Property Tax Revenue
3,025
Residents
$9.44
/Person
14.65%
Total Property Tax Revenue
$1,602,700
II. Sales Tax Revenue
Taxable Sales
Taxable Sales Generated by Residents 1 1,210 Units $11,879 /Unit $14,374,100
General Commercial 291,100 Sq. Ft. $400 /Sq. Ft. 116,440,000
Total Taxable Sales $130,814,100
Sales Tax Rate 1.0%
Total Sales Tax Revenue $1,308,100
III. Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Room Sales Revenue
Transient Occupancy Rate
0 Rooms $12,775 /Room
$0
8.0%
Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $0
IV. Other Revenues
Electric Franchise Fee
3,165
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$30,300
Cable Television Franchise Fee
3,025
Residents
$11.74
/Person
35,500
Gas Franchise Fee
3,165
R+E+V
$1.88
/Person
6,000
Solid Waste Hauler Franchise Fee
3,165
R+E+V
$14.63
/Person
46,300
Business License
140
Employees
$10.80
/Person
1,500
Licenses and Permits
3,025
Residents
$1.26
/Person
3,800
Fines & Forfeitures
3,165
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
28,300
Fees and Charges
3,025
Residents
$18.30
/Person
55,400
Other Government Agencies
3,025
Residents
$9.44
/Person
28,600
Total Other Revenues
$235,700
V. ITotal Annual General Fund Revenues
$3,146,500
1 Average household income is estimated based on the $675,000 for new High Density Residentialand 35% of income spent on housing expenses
Assumes that 30% of income is spent on retail goods; 70% of those sales are taxable; and 45% of the sales occur in existing Costa Mesa
establishments.
z Based on an average daily room rate of $50.00 and an average occupancy rate of 40%.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_N_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT C-2 - TABLE 3
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, NET FISCAL IMPACT & ECONOMIC IMPACT
LA TIMES SITE: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Annual Expenditures
Police
3,165
R+E+V
$305.75
/Person
$967,700
Fire
133.56
Incidents
$3,145
/Incident
420,000
Parks
3,025
Residents
$8.46
/Person
25,600
Development Services
3,165
R+E+V
$19.28
/Person
61,000
Public Services
3,165
R+E+V
$83.27
/Person
263,500
Administrative Overhead
32.68%
Other General Fund
Expenditures
567,900
Total Annual Expenditures
$770,100
II. Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual General Fund Revenues
(Less) Total Annual Expenditures
$3,146,500
($770,100)
Net Fiscal Impact $2,376,400
III. Economic Impact
A. Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs
General Retail
Office
140 Direct Jobs 1.1917 Multiplier 167
0 Direct Jobs 1.7165 Multiplier 0
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs 167
B. Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings
General Retail
Office
$33,000 Average Salary 1.3794 Multiplier $6,372,900
$89,400 Average Salary 1.7707 Multiplier 0
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings $6,372,900
Source for multipliers: Regional Input -Output Modeling System (RIMS II) - RIMS II Multipliers for Orange County (2007/2013).
Source for salaries: California Employment Development Department Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, May 2015. Direct & Indirect
Increase in Earnings estimated by multiplying the Direct Jobs times the Average Salary and the applicable Multiplier.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Res Inc_N_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT D-1
LA TIMES SITE: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; LA Times_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT D-1- TABLE 1
POPULATION ESTIMATES (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS)
LA TIMES SITE: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Residential Population
Number of Units
Average Number of Persons Per Unit
Total Residential Population
II. Employment Population
A. General Retail
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated General Retail Employees
B. Manufacturing
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated Manufacturing Employees
Total Employment Population
III. Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
Number of Rooms
Visitors Per Room
Average Occupancy Rate
Estimated Number of Visitors
Visitor Conversion to Resident Equivalent
Total Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
1 500
374,000
z 300
1.75
40%
0
24%
1,247
24%
0
75%
I
299
0
299
0
IV. ITotal Population (Full -Time Equivalents) 299
1 General Plan measures against net leasable area - 10% discount from gross floor area.
2 General Plan measures against the gross floor area minus an 8% vacancy rate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; LA Times_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT D-1- TABLE 2
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
LA TIMES SITE: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Property Tax Revenue
Assessed Value
Electric Franchise Fee
299
R+E+V
$9.57
Residential
0
Units
/Unit
$0
General Retail
0
Sq. Ft.
$200 /Sq. Ft.
0
Office
374,000
Sq. Ft.
$150 /Sq. Ft.
56,100,000
Motels
0
Rooms
$50,000 /Room
0
Total Assessed Value
299
Employees
$10.80
$56,100,000
Property Tax Rate
Licenses and Permits
0
Residents
1.25%
Total Property Tax Revenue
0
Fines & Forfeitures
299
$701,300
City Share of Property Tax Revenue
/Person
2,700
Fees and Charges
14.65%
Total Property Tax Revenue
$18.30
/Person
0
$102,800
II. Sales Tax Revenue
Taxable Sales
Taxable Sales Generated by Residents 1 0 Units /Unit $0
General Commercial 0 Sq. Ft. $400 /Sq. Ft. 0
Total Taxable Sales $0
Sales Tax Rate 1.0%
Total Sales Tax Revenue $0
III. Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Room Sales Revenue
Transient Occupancy Rate
0 Rooms $12,775 /Room
$0
8.0%
Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $0
IV. Other Revenues
Electric Franchise Fee
299
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$2,900
Cable Television Franchise Fee
0
Residents
$11.74
/Person
0
Gas Franchise Fee
299
R+E+V
$1.88
/Person
600
Solid Waste Hauler Franchise Fee
299
R+E+V
$14.63
/Person
4,400
Business License
299
Employees
$10.80
/Person
3,200
Licenses and Permits
0
Residents
$1.26
/Person
0
Fines & Forfeitures
299
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
2,700
Fees and Charges
0
Residents
$18.30
/Person
0
Other Government Agencies
0
Residents
$9.44
/Person
0
Total Other Revenues
$13,800
V. ITotal Annual General Fund Revenues
$116,600
1 Average household income is estimated based on the $675,000 for new High Density Residentialand 35% of income spent on housing expenses
Assumes that 30% of income is spent on retail goods; 70% of those sales are taxable; and 45% of the sales occur in existing Costa Mesa
establishments.
z Based on an average daily room rate of $50.00 and an average occupancy rate of 40%.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; LA Times_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT D-1- TABLE 3
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, NET FISCAL IMPACT & ECONOMIC IMPACT
LA TIMES SITE: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Annual Expenditures
Police
299
R+E+V
$305.75
/Person
$91,400
Fire
6.10
Incidents
$3,145
/Incident
19,200
Parks
0
Residents
$8.46
/Person
0
Development Services
299
R+E+V
$19.28
/Person
5,800
Public Services
299
R+E+V
$83.27
/Person
24,900
Administrative Overhead
32.68%
Other General Fund
Expenditures
46,200
Total Annual Expenditures
$49,900
II. Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual General Fund Revenues
(Less) Total Annual Expenditures
$116,600
($49,900)
Net Fiscal Impact $66,700
III. Economic Impact
A. Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs
General Retail
Manufacturing
0 Direct Jobs 1.1917 Multiplier 0
299 Direct Jobs 1.7286 Multiplier 517
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs 517
B. Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings
General Retail
Manufacturing
$33,000 Average Salary 1.3794 Multiplier $0
$34,100 Average Salary 1.6638 Multiplier 16,963,800
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings $16,963,800
Source for multipliers: Regional Input -Output Modeling System (RIMS II) - RIMS II Multipliers for Orange County (2007/2013).
Source for salaries: California Employment Development Department Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, May 2015. Direct & Indirect
Increase in Earnings estimated by multiplying the Direct Jobs times the Average Salary and the applicable Multiplier.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; LA Times_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT D-2
LA TIMES SITE: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; LA Times_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT D-2 -TABLE 1
POPULATION ESTIMATES (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS)
LA TIMES SITE: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Residential Population
Number of Units
Average Number of Persons Per Unit
Total Residential Population
II. Employment Population
A. General Retail
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated General Retail Employees
B. Office
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated Office Employees
Total Employment Population
III. Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
Number of Rooms
Visitors Per Room
Average Occupancy Rate
Estimated Number of Visitors
Visitor Conversion to Resident Equivalent
Total Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
165,800
1 500
458,600
z 326
1.75
40%
332
24%
1,406
24%
0
75%
80
337
0
417
0
IV. ITotal Population (Full -Time Equivalents) 417
1 General Plan measures against net leasable area - 10% discount from gross floor area.
2 General Plan measures against the gross floor area minus an 8% vacancy rate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; LA Times_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT D-2 -TABLE 2
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
LA TIMES SITE: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Property Tax Revenue
Assessed Value
Electric Franchise Fee
417
R+E+V
$9.57
Residential
0
Units
/Unit
$0
General Retail
165,800
Sq. Ft.
$200 /Sq. Ft.
33,160,000
Office
458,600
Sq. Ft.
$150 /Sq. Ft.
68,790,000
Motels
0
Rooms
$50,000 /Room
0
Total Assessed Value
417
Employees
$10.80
$101,950,000
Property Tax Rate
Licenses and Permits
0
Residents
1.25%
Total Property Tax Revenue
0
Fines & Forfeitures
417
$1,274,400
City Share of Property Tax Revenue
/Person
3,700
Fees and Charges
14.65%
Total Property Tax Revenue
$18.30
/Person
0
$186,700
II. Sales Tax Revenue
Taxable Sales
Taxable Sales Generated by Residents 1 0 Units /Unit $0
General Commercial 165,800 Sq. Ft. $400 /Sq. Ft. 66,320,000
Total Taxable Sales $66,320,000
Sales Tax Rate 1.0%
Total Sales Tax Revenue $663,200
III. Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Room Sales Revenue
Transient Occupancy Rate
0 Rooms $12,775 /Room
$0
8.0%
Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $0
IV. Other Revenues
Electric Franchise Fee
417
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$4,000
Cable Television Franchise Fee
0
Residents
$11.74
/Person
0
Gas Franchise Fee
417
R+E+V
$1.88
/Person
800
Solid Waste Hauler Franchise Fee
417
R+E+V
$14.63
/Person
6,100
Business License
417
Employees
$10.80
/Person
4,500
Licenses and Permits
0
Residents
$1.26
/Person
0
Fines & Forfeitures
417
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
3,700
Fees and Charges
0
Residents
$18.30
/Person
0
Other Government Agencies
0
Residents
$9.44
/Person
0
Total Other Revenues
$19,100
V. ITotal Annual General Fund Revenues
$869,000
1 Average household income is estimated based on the $675,000 for new High Density Residentialand 35% of income spent on housing expenses
Assumes that 30% of income is spent on retail goods; 70% of those sales are taxable; and 45% of the sales occur in existing Costa Mesa
establishments.
z Based on an average daily room rate of $50.00 and an average occupancy rate of 40%.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; LA Times_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT D-2 -TABLE 3
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, NET FISCAL IMPACT & ECONOMIC IMPACT
LA TIMES SITE: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Annual Expenditures
Police
417
R+E+V
$305.75
/Person
$127,500
Fire
40.67
Incidents
$3,145
/Incident
127,900
Parks
0
Residents
$8.46
/Person
0
Development Services
417
R+E+V
$19.28
/Person
8,000
Public Services
417
R+E+V
$83.27
/Person
34,700
Administrative Overhead
32.68%
Other General Fund
Expenditures
97,400
Total Annual Expenditures
$170,600
II. Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual General Fund Revenues
(Less) Total Annual Expenditures
$869,000
($170,600)
Net Fiscal Impact $698,400
III. Economic Impact
A. Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs
General Retail
Office
80 Direct Jobs 1.1917 Multiplier 95
337 Direct Jobs 1.7165 Multiplier 578
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs 673
B. Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings
General Retail
Office
$33,000 Average Salary 1.3794 Multiplier $3,641,700
$89,400 Average Salary 1.7707 Multiplier 53,348,000
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings $56,989,700
Source for multipliers: Regional Input -Output Modeling System (RIMS II) - RIMS II Multipliers for Orange County (2007/2013).
Source for salaries: California Employment Development Department Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, May 2015. Direct & Indirect
Increase in Earnings estimated by multiplying the Direct Jobs times the Average Salary and the applicable Multiplier.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; LA Times_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT E-1
SOBECA: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; SOBECA_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT E-1- TABLE 1
POPULATION ESTIMATES (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS)
SOBECA: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Residential Population
Number of Units
Average Number of Persons Per Unit
Total Residential Population
II. Employment Population
A. General Retail
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated General Retail Employees
B. Light Industry
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated Light Industry Employees
Total Employment Population
III. Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
Number of Rooms
Visitors Per Room
Average Occupancy Rate
Estimated Number of Visitors
Visitor Conversion to Resident Equivalent
Total Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
147,300
1 500
458,600
z 470
1.75
40%
295
24%
976
24%
0
75%
71
234
0
011
0
IV. ITotal Population (Full -Time Equivalents) 305
1 General Plan measures against net leasable area - 10% discount from gross floor area.
2 General Plan measures against the gross floor area minus an 8% vacancy rate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; SOBECA_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT E-1- TABLE 2
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
SOBECA: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Property Tax Revenue
Assessed Value
Electric Franchise Fee
305
R+E+V
$9.57
Residential
0
Units
/Unit
$0
General Retail
147,300
Sq. Ft.
$200 /Sq. Ft.
29,460,000
Office
458,600
Sq. Ft.
$150 /Sq. Ft.
68,790,000
Motels
0
Rooms
$50,000 /Room
0
Total Assessed Value
305
Employees
$10.80
$98,250,000
Property Tax Rate
Licenses and Permits
0
Residents
1.25%
Total Property Tax Revenue
0
Fines & Forfeitures
305
$1,228,100
City Share of Property Tax Revenue
/Person
2,700
Fees and Charges
14.65%
Total Property Tax Revenue
$18.30
/Person
0
$180,000
II. Sales Tax Revenue
Taxable Sales
Taxable Sales Generated by Residents 1 0 Units /Unit $0
General Commercial 147,300 Sq. Ft. $400 /Sq. Ft. 58,920,000
Total Taxable Sales $58,920,000
Sales Tax Rate 1.0%
Total Sales Tax Revenue $589,200
III. Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Room Sales Revenue
Transient Occupancy Rate
0 Rooms $12,775 /Room
$0
8.0%
Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $0
IV. Other Revenues
Electric Franchise Fee
305
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$2,900
Cable Television Franchise Fee
0
Residents
$11.74
/Person
0
Gas Franchise Fee
305
R+E+V
$1.88
/Person
600
Solid Waste Hauler Franchise Fee
305
R+E+V
$14.63
/Person
4,500
Business License
305
Employees
$10.80
/Person
3,300
Licenses and Permits
0
Residents
$1.26
/Person
0
Fines & Forfeitures
305
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
2,700
Fees and Charges
0
Residents
$18.30
/Person
0
Other Government Agencies
0
Residents
$9.44
/Person
0
Total Other Revenues
$14,000
V. ITotal Annual General Fund Revenues
$783,200
1 Average household income is estimated based on the $675,000 for new High Density Residentialand 35% of income spent on housing expenses
Assumes that 30% of income is spent on retail goods; 70% of those sales are taxable; and 45% of the sales occur in existing Costa Mesa
establishments.
z Based on an average daily room rate of $50.00 and an average occupancy rate of 40%.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; SOBECA_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT E-1- TABLE 3
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, NET FISCAL IMPACT & ECONOMIC IMPACT
SOBECA: CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Annual Expenditures
Police
305
R+E+V
$305.75
/Person
$93,300
Fire
17.65
Incidents
$3,145
/Incident
55,500
Parks
0
Residents
$8.46
/Person
0
Development Services
305
R+E+V
$19.28
/Person
5,900
Public Services
305
R+E+V
$83.27
/Person
25,400
Administrative Overhead
32.68%
Other General Fund
Expenditures
58,900
Total Annual Expenditures
$86,800
II. Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual General Fund Revenues
(Less) Total Annual Expenditures
$783,200
($86,800)
Net Fiscal Impact $696,400
III. Economic Impact
A. Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs
General Retail
Light Industry
71 Direct Jobs 1.1917 Multiplier 85
234 Direct Jobs 1.7165 Multiplier 402
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs 487
B. Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings
General Retail
Light Industry
$33,000 Average Salary 1.3794 Multiplier $3,232,000
$34,100 Average Salary 1.6638 Multiplier 13,276,000
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings $16,508,000
Source for multipliers: Regional Input -Output Modeling System (RIMS II) - RIMS II Multipliers for Orange County (2007/2013).
Source for salaries: California Employment Development Department Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, May 2015. Direct & Indirect
Increase in Earnings estimated by multiplying the Direct Jobs times the Average Salary and the applicable Multiplier.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; SOBECA_Base
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT E-2
SOBECA: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; SOBECA_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT E-2 - TABLE 1
POPULATION ESTIMATES (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS)
SOBECA: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Residential Population
Number of Units
Average Number of Persons Per Unit
Total Residential Population
II. Employment Population
A. General Retail
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated General Retail Employees
B. Office
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated Office Employees
Total Employment Population
III. Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
Number of Rooms
Visitors Per Room
Average Occupancy Rate
Estimated Number of Visitors
Visitor Conversion to Resident Equivalent
Total Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
7
2
450
2.50
500
0
24%
0
326
0
24%
1.75
40%
0
75%
1,125
0
0
IV. ITotal Population (Full -Time Equivalents) 1,125
1 General Plan measures against net leasable area - 10% discount from gross floor area.
2 General Plan measures against the gross floor area minus an 8% vacancy rate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; SOBECA_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT E-2 - TABLE 2
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
SOBECA: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Property Tax Revenue
Assessed Value
Electric Franchise Fee
1,125
R+E+V
$9.57
Residential
450 Units
$675,000
/Unit
$303,750,000
General Retail
0 Sq. Ft.
$200
/Sq. Ft.
0
Office
0 Sq. Ft.
$150
/Sq. Ft.
0
Motels
0 Rooms
$50,000
/Room
0
Total Assessed Value
0
Employees
$10.80
$303,750,000
Property Tax Rate
Licenses and Permits
1,125
Residents
1.25%
Total Property Tax Revenue
1,400
Fines & Forfeitures
1,125
$3,796,900
City Share of Property Tax Revenue
/Person
10,100
Fees and Charges
14.65%
Total Property Tax Revenue
$18.30
/Person
20,600
$556,400
II. Sales Tax Revenue
Taxable Sales
Taxable Sales Generated by Residents 1 450 Units $11,879 /Unit $5,345,700
General Commercial 0 Sq. Ft. $400 /Sq. Ft. 0
Total Taxable Sales $5,345,700
Sales Tax Rate 1.0%
Total Sales Tax Revenue $53,500
III. Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Room Sales Revenue
Transient Occupancy Rate
0 Rooms $12,775 /Room
$0
8.0%
Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $0
IV. Other Revenues
Electric Franchise Fee
1,125
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$10,800
Cable Television Franchise Fee
1,125
Residents
$11.74
/Person
13,200
Gas Franchise Fee
1,125
R+E+V
$1.88
/Person
2,100
Solid Waste Hauler Franchise Fee
1,125
R+E+V
$14.63
/Person
16,500
Business License
0
Employees
$10.80
/Person
0
Licenses and Permits
1,125
Residents
$1.26
/Person
1,400
Fines & Forfeitures
1,125
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
10,100
Fees and Charges
1,125
Residents
$18.30
/Person
20,600
Other Government Agencies
1,125
Residents
$9.44
/Person
10,600
Total Other Revenues
$85,300
V. ITotal Annual General Fund Revenues
$695,200
1 Average household income is estimated based on the $675,000 for new High Density Residentialand 35% of income spent on housing expenses
Assumes that 30% of income is spent on retail goods; 70% of those sales are taxable; and 45% of the sales occur in existing Costa Mesa
establishments.
z Based on an average daily room rate of $50.00 and an average occupancy rate of 40%.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; SOBECA_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT E-2 - TABLE 3
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, NET FISCAL IMPACT & ECONOMIC IMPACT
SOBECA: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Annual Expenditures
Police
1,125
R+E+V
$305.75
/Person
$344,000
Fire
40.82
Incidents
$3,145
/Incident
128,400
Parks
1,125
Residents
$8.46
/Person
9,500
Development Services
1,125
R+E+V
$19.28
/Person
21,700
Public Services
1,125
R+E+V
$83.27
/Person
93,700
Administrative Overhead
32.68%
Other General Fund
Expenditures
195,200
Total Annual Expenditures
$253,300
II. Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual General Fund Revenues
(Less) Total Annual Expenditures
$695,200
($253,300)
Net Fiscal Impact $441,900
III. Economic Impact
A. Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs
General Retail
Office
0 Direct Jobs 1.1917 Multiplier
0 Direct Jobs 1.7165 Multiplier
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs 0
B. Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings
General Retail
Office
$33,000 Average Salary 1.3794 Multiplier $0
$89,400 Average Salary 1.7707 Multiplier 0
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings $0
Source for multipliers: Regional Input -Output Modeling System (RIMS II) - RIMS II Multipliers for Orange County (2007/2013).
Source for salaries: California Employment Development Department Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, May 2015. Direct & Indirect
Increase in Earnings estimated by multiplying the Direct Jobs times the Average Salary and the applicable Multiplier.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; SOBECA_Proposed
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT F
SEGERSTROM HOME RANCH
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Home Ranch
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT F - TABLE 1
POPULATION ESTIMATES (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS)
SEGERSTROM HOME RANCH
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Residential Population
Number of Units
Average Number of Persons Per Unit
Total Residential Population
II. Employment Population
A. General Retail
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated General Retail Employees
B. Office
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated Office Employees
Total Employment Population
III. Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
Number of Rooms
Visitors Per Room
Average Occupancy Rate
Estimated Number of Visitors
Visitor Conversion to Resident Equivalent
Total Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
1 500
1,200,000
z 326
0
1.75
40%
0
24%
3,680
24%
0
75%
I
883
0
883
0
IV. ITotal Population (Full -Time Equivalents) 883
1 General Plan measures against net leasable area - 10% discount from gross floor area.
2 General Plan measures against the gross floor area minus an 8% vacancy rate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Home Ranch
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT F - TABLE 2
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
SEGERSTROM HOME RANCH
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Property Tax Revenue
Assessed Value
Electric Franchise Fee
883
R+E+V
$9.57
Residential
0
Units
/Unit
$0
General Retail
0
Sq. Ft.
$200 /Sq. Ft.
0
Office
1,200,000
Sq. Ft.
$150 /Sq. Ft.
180,000,000
Motels
0
Rooms
$50,000 /Room
0
Total Assessed Value
883
Employees
$10.80
$180,000,000
Property Tax Rate
Licenses and Permits
0
Residents
1.25%
Total Property Tax Revenue
0
Fines & Forfeitures
883
$2,250,000
City Share of Property Tax Revenue
/Person
7,900
Fees and Charges
14.65%
Total Property Tax Revenue
$18.30
/Person
0
$329,700
II. Sales Tax Revenue
Taxable Sales
Taxable Sales Generated by Residents 1 0 Units /Unit $0
General Commercial 0 Sq. Ft. $400 /Sq. Ft. 0
Total Taxable Sales $0
Sales Tax Rate 1.0%
Total Sales Tax Revenue $0
III. Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Room Sales Revenue
Transient Occupancy Rate
0 Rooms $12,775 /Room
$0
8.0%
Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $0
IV. Other Revenues
Electric Franchise Fee
883
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$8,500
Cable Television Franchise Fee
0
Residents
$11.74
/Person
0
Gas Franchise Fee
883
R+E+V
$1.88
/Person
1,700
Solid Waste Hauler Franchise Fee
883
R+E+V
$14.63
/Person
12,900
Business License
883
Employees
$10.80
/Person
9,500
Licenses and Permits
0
Residents
$1.26
/Person
0
Fines & Forfeitures
883
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
7,900
Fees and Charges
0
Residents
$18.30
/Person
0
Other Government Agencies
0
Residents
$9.44
/Person
0
Total Other Revenues
$40,500
V. ITotal Annual General Fund Revenues
$370,200
1 Average household income is estimated based on the $675,000 for new High Density Residentialand 35% of income spent on housing expenses
Assumes that 30% of income is spent on retail goods; 70% of those sales are taxable; and 45% of the sales occur in existing Costa Mesa
establishments.
z Based on an average daily room rate of $50.00 and an average occupancy rate of 40%.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Home Ranch
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT F - TABLE 3
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, NET FISCAL IMPACT & ECONOMIC IMPACT
SEGERSTROM HOME RANCH
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Annual Expenditures
Police
883
R+E+V
$305.75
/Person
$270,000
Fire
70.92
Incidents
$3,145
/Incident
223,000
Parks
0
Residents
$8.46
/Person
0
Development Services
883
R+E+V
$19.28
/Person
17,000
Public Services
883
R+E+V
$83.27
/Person
73,500
Administrative Overhead
32.68%
Other General Fund
Expenditures
190,700
Total Annual Expenditures
$313,500
II. Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual General Fund Revenues
(Less) Total Annual Expenditures
$370,200
($313,500)
Net Fiscal Impact $56,700
III. Economic Impact
A. Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs
General Retail
Office
0 Direct Jobs 1.1917 Multiplier 0
883 Direct Jobs 1.7165 Multiplier 1,516
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs 1,516
B. Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings
General Retail
Office
$33,000 Average Salary 1.3794 Multiplier $0
$89,400 Average Salary 1.7707 Multiplier 139,781,200
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings $139,781,200
Source for multipliers: Regional Input -Output Modeling System (RIMS II) - RIMS II Multipliers for Orange County (2007/2013).
Source for salaries: California Employment Development Department Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, May 2015. Direct & Indirect
Increase in Earnings estimated by multiplying the Direct Jobs times the Average Salary and the applicable Multiplier.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Home Ranch
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT G
SAKIOKA SITE - LOT 2
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Sakioka #2
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT G - TABLE 1
POPULATION ESTIMATES (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS)
SAKIOKA SITE - LOT 2
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Residential Population
Number of Units
Average Number of Persons Per Unit
Total Residential Population
II. Employment Population
A. General Retail
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated General Retail Employees
B. Office
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated Office Employees
Total Employment Population
III. Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
Number of Rooms
Visitors Per Room
Average Occupancy Rate
Estimated Number of Visitors
Visitor Conversion to Resident Equivalent
Total Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
7
2
660
2.50
500
0
24%
0
326
0
24%
1.75
40%
0
75%
1,650
0
0
IV. ITotal Population (Full -Time Equivalents) 1,650
1 General Plan measures against net leasable area - 10% discount from gross floor area.
2 General Plan measures against the gross floor area minus an 8% vacancy rate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Sakioka #2
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT G - TABLE 2
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
SAKIOKA SITE - LOT 2
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Property Tax Revenue
Assessed Value
Electric Franchise Fee
1,650
R+E+V
$9.57
Residential
660 Units
$626,227
/Unit
$413,310,000
General Retail
0 Sq. Ft.
$200
/Sq. Ft.
0
Office
0 Sq. Ft.
$150
/Sq. Ft.
0
Motels
0 Rooms
$50,000
/Room
0
Total Assessed Value
0
Employees
$10.80
$413,310,000
Property Tax Rate
Licenses and Permits
1,650
Residents
1.25%
Total Property Tax Revenue
2,100
Fines & Forfeitures
1,650
$5,166,400
City Share of Property Tax Revenue
/Person
14,800
Fees and Charges
14.65%
Total Property Tax Revenue
$18.30
/Person
30,200
$757,100
II. Sales Tax Revenue
Taxable Sales
Taxable Sales Generated by Residents 1 660 Units $11,161 /Unit $7,366,500
General Commercial 0 Sq. Ft. $400 /Sq. Ft. 0
Total Taxable Sales $7,366,500
Sales Tax Rate 1.0%
Total Sales Tax Revenue $73,700
III. Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Room Sales Revenue
Transient Occupancy Rate
0 Rooms $12,775 /Room
$0
8.0%
Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $0
IV. Other Revenues
Electric Franchise Fee
1,650
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$15,800
Cable Television Franchise Fee
1,650
Residents
$11.74
/Person
19,400
Gas Franchise Fee
1,650
R+E+V
$1.88
/Person
3,100
Solid Waste Hauler Franchise Fee
1,650
R+E+V
$14.63
/Person
24,100
Business License
0
Employees
$10.80
/Person
0
Licenses and Permits
1,650
Residents
$1.26
/Person
2,100
Fines & Forfeitures
1,650
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
14,800
Fees and Charges
1,650
Residents
$18.30
/Person
30,200
Other Government Agencies
1,650
Residents
$9.44
/Person
15,600
Total Other Revenues
$125,100
V. ITotal Annual General Fund Revenues
$955,900
1 Average household income for the market -rate units is estimated based on the $675,000 average sales price for new High Density Residential and
35% of income spent on housing expenses. Maximum income for the very -low income units is estimated at $39,250. Assumes that 30% of income is
spent on retail goods; 70% of those sales are taxable; and 45% of the sales occur in existing Costa Mesa establishments.
2 Based on an average daily room rate of $50.00 and an average occupancy rate of 40%.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Sakioka #2
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT G - TABLE 3
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, NET FISCAL IMPACT & ECONOMIC IMPACT
SAKIOKA SITE - LOT 2
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Annual Expenditures
Police
1,650
R+E+V
$305.75
/Person
$504,500
Fire
54.60
Incidents
$3,145
/Incident
171,700
Parks
1,650
Residents
$8.46
/Person
14,000
Development Services
1,650
R+E+V
$19.28
/Person
31,800
Public Services
1,650
R+E+V
$83.27
/Person
137,400
Administrative Overhead
32.68%
Other General Fund
Expenditures
280,900
Total Annual Expenditures
$354,900
II. Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual General Fund Revenues
(Less) Total Annual Expenditures
$955,900
($354,900)
Net Fiscal Impact $601,000
III. Economic Impact
A. Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs
General Retail
Office
0 Direct Jobs 1.1917 Multiplier
0 Direct Jobs 1.7165 Multiplier
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs 0
B. Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings
General Retail
Office
$33,000 Average Salary 1.3794 Multiplier $0
$89,400 Average Salary 1.7707 Multiplier 0
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings $0
Source for multipliers: Regional Input -Output Modeling System (RIMS II) - RIMS II Multipliers for Orange County (2007/2013).
Source for salaries: California Employment Development Department Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, May 2015. Direct & Indirect
Increase in Earnings estimated by multiplying the Direct Jobs times the Average Salary and the applicable Multiplier.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Sakioka #2
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT H
FAIRVIEW SITE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Fairview
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT H - TABLE 1
POPULATION ESTIMATES (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS)
FAIRVIEW SITE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Residential Population
Number of Units
Average Number of Persons Per Unit
Total Residential Population
II. Employment Population
A. General Retail
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated General Retail Employees
B. Office
Gross Building Area
Estimated Square Feet Per Employee
Estimated Number of Employees
Employment Based Resident Equivalent
Estimated Office Employees
Total Employment Population
III. Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
Number of Rooms
Visitors Per Room
Average Occupancy Rate
Estimated Number of Visitors
Visitor Conversion to Resident Equivalent
Total Visitor Population (Motel Guests)
7
2
500
2.77
500
0
24%
0
326
0
24%
1.75
40%
0
75%
1,383
0
0
IV. ITotal Population (Full -Time Equivalents) 1,383
1 General Plan measures against net leasable area - 10% discount from gross floor area.
2 General Plan measures against the gross floor area minus an 8% vacancy rate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Fairview
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT H - TABLE 2
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
FAIRVIEW SITE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Property Tax Revenue
Assessed Value
Electric Franchise Fee
1,383
R+E+V
$9.57
Residential
500 Units
$765,000
/Unit
$382,500,000
General Retail
0 Sq. Ft.
$200
/Sq. Ft.
0
Office
0 Sq. Ft.
$150
/Sq. Ft.
0
Motels
0 Rooms
$50,000
/Room
0
Total Assessed Value
0
Employees
$10.80
$382,500,000
Property Tax Rate
Licenses and Permits
1,383
Residents
1.25%
Total Property Tax Revenue
1,700
Fines & Forfeitures
1,383
$4,781,300
City Share of Property Tax Revenue
/Person
12,400
Fees and Charges
14.65%
Total Property Tax Revenue
$18.30
/Person
25,300
$700,600
II. Sales Tax Revenue
Taxable Sales
Taxable Sales Generated by Residents 1 500 Units $13,463 /Unit $6,731,700
General Commercial 0 Sq. Ft. $400 /Sq. Ft. 0
Total Taxable Sales $6,731,700
Sales Tax Rate 1.0%
Total Sales Tax Revenue $67,300
III. Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Room Sales Revenue
Transient Occupancy Rate
0 Rooms $12,775 /Room
$0
8.0%
Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $0
IV. Other Revenues
Electric Franchise Fee
1,383
R+E+V
$9.57
/Person
$13,200
Cable Television Franchise Fee
1,383
Residents
$11.74
/Person
16,200
Gas Franchise Fee
1,383
R+E+V
$1.88
/Person
2,600
Solid Waste Hauler Franchise Fee
1,383
R+E+V
$14.63
/Person
20,200
Business License
0
Employees
$10.80
/Person
0
Licenses and Permits
1,383
Residents
$1.26
/Person
1,700
Fines & Forfeitures
1,383
R+E+V
$8.95
/Person
12,400
Fees and Charges
1,383
Residents
$18.30
/Person
25,300
Other Government Agencies
1,383
Residents
$9.44
/Person
13,100
Total Other Revenues
$104,700
V. ITotal Annual General Fund Revenues
$872,600
1 Average household income is estimated based on the $900,000 average sales price for new Medium Density Residential and $675,000 for new High
Density Residential; and 35% of income spent on housing expenses. Assumes that 30% of income is spent on retail goods; 70% of those sales are
taxable; and 45% of the sales occur in existing Costa Mesa establishments.
z Based on an average daily room rate of $50.00 and an average occupancy rate of 40%.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Fairview
ATTACHMENT V: EXHIBIT H - TABLE 3
ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, NET FISCAL IMPACT & ECONOMIC IMPACT
FAIRVIEW SITE
FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ELECTION CODE 9212 REPORT
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
I. Annual Expenditures
Police
1,383
R+E+V
$305.75
/Person
$422,900
Fire
45.35
Incidents
$3,145
/Incident
142,600
Parks
1,383
Residents
$8.46
/Person
11,700
Development Services
1,383
R+E+V
$19.28
/Person
26,700
Public Services
1,383
R+E+V
$83.27
/Person
115,200
Administrative Overhead
32.68%
Other General Fund
Expenditures
235,000
Total Annual Expenditures
$296,200
II. Net Fiscal Impact
Total Annual General Fund Revenues
(Less) Total Annual Expenditures
$872,600
($296,200)
Net Fiscal Impact $576,400
III. Economic Impact
A. Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs
General Retail
Office
0 Direct Jobs 1.1917 Multiplier
0 Direct Jobs 1.7165 Multiplier
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Jobs 0
B. Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings
General Retail
Office
$33,000 Average Salary 1.3794 Multiplier $0
$89,400 Average Salary 1.7707 Multiplier 0
Total Direct & Indirect Increase in Earnings $0
Source for multipliers: Regional Input -Output Modeling System (RIMS II) - RIMS II Multipliers for Orange County (2007/2013).
Source for salaries: California Employment Development Department Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, May 2015. Direct & Indirect
Increase in Earnings estimated by multiplying the Direct Jobs times the Average Salary and the applicable Multiplier.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File name: CM 9212_3 30 16; Fairview