Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 2000 0119 RDA REGESTASUMO VARN It MR OF Resolution No. 2000-90 MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2000 6:30 P.M. Moorpark Community Center - 799 Moorpark Avenue 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: 3. PUBLIC COMMENT: 4. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Consider Resolution No. 2000- Adopting the 1999-2004 Five Year Implementation Plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency. (Continued from January 5, 2000, with Public Hearing Open.) Staff Recommendations: 1) Take public testimony; 2) Close public hearing; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2000- adopting the 1999-2004 Five Year Implementation Plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency. 5. PRESENTATION/ACTION/DISCUSSION: A. Consider The City of Moorpark Downtown Revitalization Study. Staff Recommendations: 1) Receive and file the City of Moorpark Downtown Revitalization Study; and 2) Direct the City Council's Economic Development Committee to develop a recommendation on how to proceed with Phase II. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Consider Approval of Minutes of Special Redevelopment Agency Meeting of April 14, 1999. Consider Approval of Minutes of Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting of September 15, 1999. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: (continued) Redevelopment Agency Agenda January 19, 2000 Page 2 Consider Approval of Minutes of Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting of October 6, 1999. Staff Recommendation: Approve minutes as processed. B. Consider the Transfer of Certain Real Property from the City of Moorpark to the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency. Staff Recommendation: Accept the transfer of Parcel APN 506-0-020-475 from the City of Moorpark. 7. CLOSED SESSION: 8. ADJOURNMENT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any member of the public may address the Agpncy during the Public Comments portion of the Agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing or a Presentation/Action/Discussion item. Speakers who wish to address the Agency concerning a Public Hearing or Presentations/Action/Discussion item must do so during the Public Hearing or Presentations /Action /Discussion portion of the Agenda for that item. Speaker cards must be received by the City Clerk for Public Comments prior to the beginning of the Public Comments portion of the meeting and for Presentation /Action /Discussion items prior to the beginning of the first item of the Presentation /Action /Discussion portion of the Agenda. Speaker Cards for a Public Hearing must be received prior to the beginning of the Public Hearing. A limitation of three minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Comment and Presentation/Action/Discussion item speaker. A limitation of three to five minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Rearing item speaker. Written Statement Cards may be submitted in lieu of speaking orally for open Public Hearings and Presentation/Action/Discussion items. Copies of each item of business on the agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and are available for public review. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the City Clerk at 529-6864. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Department at (805) 529-6864. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss CITY OF MOORPARK AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I , La-Dell VanDeren, declare as follows : That I am the Deputy City Clerk of the City of Moorpark and that a notice for a Regular meeting of the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency to be held January 19, 2000, at 6 : 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Moorpark Community Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California, was posted on January 14, 2000, at a conspicuous place at the Moorpark Community Center, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct . Executed on January 14 , 2000 . La-Dell VanDeren, Deputy City Clerk on FROM: DATE: MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT Honorable Board of Directors I'1 EM 4 - .&. -000UNNOW Graham Mitchell, Senior Management Analyst 0--\ January 7, 2000 (Meeting of 1/19/00) SUBJECT: Consider Resolution No. 2000- Adopting the 1999 - 2004 Five Year Implementation Plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency. Background The Agency Board, at its January 5, 2000 meeting, opened a public hearing to consider the adoption of the 1999 -2004 Five Year Implementation Plan (Plan) for the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency. At that time, it was decided to continue the public hearing until the January 19, 2000 Agency meeting. The Agency Board requested staff to address several issues about the Plan. This staff report speaks to those issues. Discussion Several issues were raised at the January 5, 2000 Agency meeting. First, the Agency Board requested further information regarding the administrative expenses identified in the Plan. Second, a question was raised about the use of the term "Low /Moderate Income Households" as opposed to "Low Income Households." Third, the Board asked a question of whether the Plan should include a business plan outlining how and when the Agency goals will be accomplished. Honorable Board of Directors January 7, 2000 Page 2 Administrative Expenses. The Agency Board requested staff to provide a description of the administrative expenditures in the Redevelopment General and Housing funds. Table 5 on page 10 of the Plan indicates that the Agency will expend $435,174 for administration from its General Redevelopment fund. This figure includes personnel costs (5.36 full time equivalent positions) and Agency overhead. The figure also includes the Agency's pass through to other agencies, which is more than $125,000 per year. Personnel and overhead costs make up 66 percent and pass through payments makes up 34 percent of the total administrative expenditure from the General Redevelopment fund. Table 7 on page 19 of the Plan identifies that the Agency will expend $81,645 for administration from its Redevelopment Housing fund. This figure includes personnel costs (75% of one employee and 10% of another employee). The figure also includes the Agency's cost for legal and contractual services. Personnel costs make up 63 percent and costs for legal and contractual services make up 37 percent of the total administrative expenditure for redevelopment housing activities. Low /Moderate Income Households. The Agency has indicated that its efforts to provide affordable housing will be directed toward those classified as "low and very low income households." In describing affordable housing activities, the Plan's uses of the term "low /moderate income households" is based on the terminology provided in California Redevelopment Law. Although the Plan may use the term "low /moderate income households," the Agency may continue to focus its efforts in providing affordable housing for "low and very low income households." Agency Business Plan. One purpose of the Five Year Implementation Plan and its mid -term update is to ensure that every two years the Agency Board focus on its ultimate objectives —the elimination of blight, promotion of economic activity, and creation of affordable housing. California Redevelopment Law does not require the Agency to develop a plan outlining how it will accomplish those goals. However, the City Council's Affordable Housing Committee will be reviewing affordable housing concepts. These concepts, once endorsed by Honorable Board of Directors January 7, 2000 Page 3 the City Council and Agency Board, will serve as a blueprint to accomplishing the Agency's affordable housing objectives. Staff Recommendation 1) Take public testimony; 2) Close public hearing; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2000- adopting the 1999 -2004 Five Year Implementation Plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency. Attachment: Resolution No. 2000- RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE 1999 -2004 FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code (the "Code ") Subsection 33490(a)(1) requires that: On or before December 31, 1994, and each five years thereafter, each redevelopment agency that has adopted a redevelopment plan prior to December 31, 1993, shall adopt, after a public hearing, an implementation plan that shall contain the specific goals and objectives of the agency for the project area, the specific programs, including potential projects and estimated expenditures proposed to be made during the next five years, and an explanation of how the goals and objectives, programs and expenditures will eliminate blight within the project area and implement the requirements of Sections 33334.2, 33334.4, 33334.6 and 33413 of the Code; and WHEREAS, Code Section 33490 (a) (B) provides that adoption of an Implementation Plan shall not constitute a project within the meaning of Section 21000 of the Public Resource Code, and therefore no CEQA compliance is required prior to approval and adoption of the Implementation Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 5, 2000 the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark (the "Agency ") conducted and concluded the above - referenced duly noticed public hearing; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Code Section 33490, the Agency hereby adopts its 1999 -2004 Implementation Plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment Project, incorporated herein by this reference. a v Resolution No. 2000 - Page 2 SECTION 2. The Secretary of the Agency shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original Resolutions. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of January, 2000. Patrick Hunter, Chair ATTEST: t e 4 ERRATA SHEET The following pages show changes made in Legislative Format to the MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Five -Year Implementation Plan (1999 —2004) Y ¢ I y TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. ............................1.. Regulatory Framework - Ab &B 1290 ...................................... ..............................1 Requirement for Implementation Plan ..................................... ..............................1 IV. 1999 -2004 AGENCY GENERAL REDEVELOPMENT FUND GOALS AND OBJECTIVES....................................................................................... ............................7.. V. PROPOSED AGENCY GENERAL REDEVELOPMENT FUND PROGRAMS AND RELATED EXPENDITURES (1999 to 2004)' ................. ..............8 ...... ... ............................ VI. AGENCY PRODUCTION, IMPROVEMENT AND PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLEHOUSING ................................................................ .............................14 Agency Compliance Requirements ....................................... .............................14 The "Replacement Rule ........................................................ .............................14 The "Inclusionary Rule ........................................................... ............................1a5 Terms of Affordability ............................................................. .............................15 Definition of Affordable Housing ............................................ .............................16 Inclusionary Housing Plan Requirement ................................ .............................16 Use of Fund Monies Outside the Project Area ....................... .............................17 1999 -2004 Affordable Housing Goal and Objectives ............. .............................17 Low - and Moderate - income Housing Fund ............................ .............................18 Projects and Programs .......................................................... .............................18 Nexus Between Expenditure for Housing Projects and Programs and Blight Elimination ........... ................................................................ ................................ 22 Current Status of Agency Affordable Housing Compliance (1995- 1999) ............ 22 Projected Housing Units Analysis .......................................... .............................28 ExcessSurplus ..................................................................... .............................35 Ten -year and Life -of- the -plan Housing Requirements ........... .............................36 Consistency with City's General Plan Housing Element ........ .............................37 VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. ............................3.8 12/ 29/ 99M :\GMITCHELLIMOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPD i As shown in Table 2, the Agency has been active in implementing the goals and objectives set forth in both the Initial Implementation Plan and the Initial Update, and the development actions set forth in the Redevelopment Plan in a way to lessen conditions of blight and improve the overall economic and physical condition of the Project Area. However, as described in the following section, blight remains in the Project Area. The Agency's resources will continue to play an integral role in its ability to remedy those negative conditions within the Project Area. Ill. IDENTIFICATION OF KEY BLIGHTING CONDITIONS The conditions of blight which existed in the Project Area in 1989 when the Redevelopment Plan was adopted are described in Section III of the Agency's Report to the City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment Project (the "Report to the City Council ") which was presented to the City Council in July, 1989. The Report to the City Council is on file at the Agency's offices located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. The Report is incorporated herein by reference. Conditions within the Project Area, with the exception of improvements caused by the implementation of Agency - sponsored projects and programs and projects (please see Table 12129/ 99M : \GMITCHELL\MOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPD6 Agency Type of Item Date Accomplishment Description Participationl 17 1999 Housing Negotiated a development agreement providing 62 e, f Development additional affordable rental units at the Archstone housing development project (20% of the Project) 18 1999 Housing Negotiated a development agreement with MP Group LLC e, f Development providing 22 low- income units and $900,000 for RHOND liar pu . 19 1999 Housing Imposed a development condition with Far West Homes e, f Development providing 7 units for low- income households plus $300,000 for 0@04b e10n ANNO ? 20 1999 Housing Imposed a development condition with Asadurian for 1 low- e, f Development income unit. 21 1999 Market Analysis Funded a Downtown Market Analysis Study to provide the c Agency with a development concept and tools to revitalize the downtown 22 1999 Business Implemented business retention effort that included c, g Retention identifying target businesses, welcome and introduction letters, and CEO visits 1KEY a --Funding e - Housing Opportunities b - Recruitment and Planning f - Negotiations Assistance g - Program Development c - Business Retention/Development Source: City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency, November 1999. d - Fund Raising As shown in Table 2, the Agency has been active in implementing the goals and objectives set forth in both the Initial Implementation Plan and the Initial Update, and the development actions set forth in the Redevelopment Plan in a way to lessen conditions of blight and improve the overall economic and physical condition of the Project Area. However, as described in the following section, blight remains in the Project Area. The Agency's resources will continue to play an integral role in its ability to remedy those negative conditions within the Project Area. Ill. IDENTIFICATION OF KEY BLIGHTING CONDITIONS The conditions of blight which existed in the Project Area in 1989 when the Redevelopment Plan was adopted are described in Section III of the Agency's Report to the City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment Project (the "Report to the City Council ") which was presented to the City Council in July, 1989. The Report to the City Council is on file at the Agency's offices located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. The Report is incorporated herein by reference. Conditions within the Project Area, with the exception of improvements caused by the implementation of Agency - sponsored projects and programs and projects (please see Table 12129/ 99M : \GMITCHELL\MOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPD6 uses 3. The program will commence during FY 1999 -00 and continue during the entire term of this Implementation Plan. The Agency will focus on the disposition of property it has acquired as well as land which is currently vacant or underutilized. Funding projections for a property acquisition and disposition program are very difficult to make; therefore the Agency has projected up to $1.5 million for this program over the next five years. 3. Storm Drain Improvements: Along Shasta Avenue and at various other locations within the Project Area, the Agency will provide improvements (including repairs, increased capacity and new construction, as appropriate) to the storm drain system. The Shasta Avenue work is budgeted at $200,000 and scheduled to occur in FY 2003 -04; the balance of work program is projected to cost up to $1 million and is scheduled to be completed in phases during the term of this Implementation Plan. These improvements will benefit the entire Project Area and specifically residential uses (along Shasta Avenue) and office and retail uses. .. -. W. .. . �,. ..... R 00' 5-4. General Infrastructure Improvements to the Downtown: The Agency has projected the expenditure of approximately $60,000 to provide sidewalk repairs and improvements along High Street and Moorpark Avenue in the downtown area. These improvements will include landscaping, hardscape improvements, planters, curbs and gutters. The work is scheduled to occur during FY 2001 -02. &5. Business Loan Program: The Agency anticipates a major business loan program for the downtown area during the 5 -year term of this Implementation Plan. This program will be funded with $500,000 for use as loans for structural improvements (including the rehabilitation of structures constructed with unreinforced masonry), and capital expenditures. DESCRIPTION OF HOW PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS ELIMINATE BLIGHT IN THE PROJECT AREA Section 33490(a)(1)(A) of the CCRL also requires that the implementation plan prepared by each agency provide an explanation of how the program and expenditures will eliminate blight within the project area. Table 6 on page 13 shows the relationship of the proposed projects /program categories to the eradication of remaining blight, as defined in Sections 33030 and 33031 of the CCRL, within the Project Area. 3 Relocation of a fire station to Y 1' 12129/ 99M : \GMITCHELL \MOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPq 3 List of Programs and Projects Housing Rehabilitation Loan Pro ram: This program provides home improvement loans within the Project Area. The most common repair has been re- roofing, followed by exterior painting and plumbing repairs. Loans can be up to $20,000 and are available to very low- and low - income persons and families. Loans in the very low- income category are at 0 percent interest with the principal amount due on sale or change in ownership. Loans in the low - income category are at 3 percent and are amortized over 10 years.' The Agency has projected annual costs for this program to equal approximately $300,000 per year. 2. Mobile home Rehabilitation Loan Program In October, 1998 the Agency established its mobile home rehabilitation loan program which is similar to the housing rehabilitation program except that the loan limit is $6,500 with the possibility of an increase to $9,750 for special circumstances. Loans in the very low- income category are for 0 percent interest with a 10 -year call, those in the low- income category are for 3 percent interest amortized over 7 years. Commencing in FY 2000 -01 and annually thereafter, the Agency projects expending $150,000 per year on this program. 3. First Time Homebuyer Program: The Agency is proposing to initiate a First Time Homebuyer Program in FY 2001 -02 and is anticipating assisting 7 units per year thereafter. The Agency has projected a need for approximately $140,000 per year for this program. 4. New Construction: As shown in Table 17 on page 33, the Agency is projecting that it will cause the income restriction of 112 new units over the term of this Implementation Plan commencing in FY 2000 -01. The Agency apti ripater, Wi Nfie receiving $300,000 from the Far West Homes development in FY 2001 -02 and $900,000 from the Pacific Communities Costa Bella development in approximately FY 2002 -03. The Agency intends to use the balance of its LMI Fund funds reserved for xis (commencing in FY 2000 -01 and including the $300,000 and $900,000 projected to be received in FY 2001 -02 and FY 2002 -03) to assist developers in financing the restrictive covenants necessary to assure that the 112 units are income restricted in a manner sufficient for the Agency to secure appropriate 7nclusionary" credits. 7 Housing rehabilitation loans for structures outside the Project Area are made with City funds through the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund. 12129/ 99M :1GMITCHELLIMOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPD 23 PROJECTED HOUSING UNITS ANALYSIS Tables 14 through 18 present an analysis of the Agency's housing assistance activities projected to occur within the 1999 -2004 planning period using the programs and methods of assistance described in the other sections of this Implementation Plan. The information contained in these tables, in concert with the other parts of this Implementation Plan, ensure compliance with CCRL Sections 33490, 33413, 33334.2 and /or 33334.6, 33334.3 and .33334.4. The tables represent what is required by law regarding affordability, replacement and inclusionary requirements established in the CCRL and discussed at the beginning of this section of the Implementation Plan. Table 14: Table 14 shows that no (0) units within the Project Area are proposed to be destroyed or removed from the affordable housing market by the Agency during the time period covered by this Implementation Plan. Therefore, the Agency is projected to have no "replacement' requirements over the term of this Implementation Plan. Table 15: This table shows that no (0) units are being proposed for development or substantial. rehabilitation directly by the Agency inside the Project Area during the 1999 -2004 planning period. Table 16: Table 16 shows that no (0) units are proposed to be developed or substantially rehabilitated outside the Project Area directly by the Agency during the time period covered by this Implementation Plan. Table 17: Table 17 provides an analysis of all units projected to be constructed or substantial rehabilitated within the Project Area either with or without assistance .from the Agency. Please refer to Table 12 for an accounting of information provided in the "Balance Forward" row. Agency staff estimates that there is sufficient market demand, and available, residentially -zoned land, to accommodate the development of M new residential units in the Project Area over the term of the Implementation Plan. The bulk of these units, some 638 units, are projected to be constructed in FY 2001 -02 and FY 2002 -03 with the development of three projects: the Far West Condominiums, Pacific Communities single family residences, and the Archstone Communities. As further described in Footnotes 11, 12 and 13 on Table 17, all three of these developments will contain some number of income - restricted units.. As shown in the Table, the Agency has projected that fully 442 107 units ( _ ) of these 700 new units will be income restricted. Thirty -four of these units will be restricted to persons and families of very low - income and 78 will be income restricted to persons and families of to income. At the end of the planning period for this Implementation Plan, the Agency has projected that it will have a deficit of 10 very low- income units and a surplus of 13 low- and moderate - income units. The Agency will need to make every effort to reduce the inclusionary deficit in the very low- income category over the term of the third Implementation Plan. 121 291 99M :\GMITCHELL \MOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGESMPD 31 Complies with CCRL Section 33413(b)(2) & (c) & (d)(1). The Agency shall require that the aggregate number of replacement units remain available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of low -, moderate -, and very low- income households for the longest feasible time, as determined by the Agency, except as provided for in CCRL Section 33413(c)(1)(2). 2 "Substantial Rehabilitation" means rehabilitation, the value of which constitutes 25% of the after rehabilitation value of the unit, inclusive of the land value. Inclusionary obligation only arises when multi - family rental units with 3 or more units are substantially rehabilitated, or when single family units with 1 or 2 units are substantially rehabilitated using Agency assistance. 3 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50105 4 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50079.5 5 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50093 6 The Agency may cause, by agreement or regulation, to be available, at affordable housing costs, to persons of low -, moderate- or very low- income households, two units outside the Project Area for each unit that otherwise would have had to be available inside the Project Area, 7 Calculated on a cumulative year -to -year basis. 8 See Table 7 for projection of LMI Fund expenditures (CCRL Sections 33413(b)(1) and (2) and 33334.2 and /or 33334.6). 9 Per Agency staff, Mountain View (Gisler Field),59 units: a single family detached development, will be completed with 4 units restricted to the very low - income category and 11 units restricted to low - and moderate - income persons and families. 10 Per Agency staff, Tract 5181, 8 units: a single family detached development with one (1) low -@Ad ;moderate income unit. 11 Per Agency staff, Far West Condominium development, 79 units with 5 YeFy IGw IAvQFne, aAd with 7 low --aad Aw4erate- income units did an tldthahal igge requtGepxent, 12 Per Agency staff, Pacific Communities Corte Bello development, 247 single family, detached units with 22 low -aaa moderato income units. Additionally, approximately $900,000 will be made available to construct other affordable units. 13 Per Agency staff, Archstone Communities, 312 multi - family units, with 25 very low- income units and 37 lower -edera4e� income units. 12/ 29/ 99M : \GMITCHELL \MOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPD 36 UNITS REQUIRED TO BE AVAILABLE AT AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST MONITORING NO. OF UNITS DEVELOPED BY OTHERS VERY LOW' LOW'- MODERATE' Olin »a,. 1 2 3 SUBSTANTIAL REHABZ k 5' : ANNUAL DEFICIT ANNUAL SURPLUS DIFFERENCE'-' i (REQUIRED (REQUIRED R4, ? (IF ANY) (IF ANY) (DEFICIT [ -]) /(SURPLUS [ +I) NEW TO TO FISCAL CONSTRUC MULTI- SINGLE BE 6% OF BE 9% OF YEAR -TION FAMILY FAMILY (+ COLUMN 3) COLUMN 3) VERY LOW LOW -MOD VERY LOW LOW -MOD VERY LOW LOW -MOD R MMI 1999 -00 0 0 ua „ -1 -2 2000 -01 679'10 0 4.02 6.03. 0.02 5.97 -1 +4 2001 -02 326 11, 12 0 ' 6 19.56 29.34 "561% .34 -14 go +4 2002 -03 31213 0 18.72 111,111901, y 3 28.08 '; 6.28 8.92 -1.4 144 +13 2003 -04 0 0 ., •„ $$ +13 Complies with CCRL Section 33413(b)(2) & (c) & (d)(1). The Agency shall require that the aggregate number of replacement units remain available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of low -, moderate -, and very low- income households for the longest feasible time, as determined by the Agency, except as provided for in CCRL Section 33413(c)(1)(2). 2 "Substantial Rehabilitation" means rehabilitation, the value of which constitutes 25% of the after rehabilitation value of the unit, inclusive of the land value. Inclusionary obligation only arises when multi - family rental units with 3 or more units are substantially rehabilitated, or when single family units with 1 or 2 units are substantially rehabilitated using Agency assistance. 3 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50105 4 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50079.5 5 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50093 6 The Agency may cause, by agreement or regulation, to be available, at affordable housing costs, to persons of low -, moderate- or very low- income households, two units outside the Project Area for each unit that otherwise would have had to be available inside the Project Area, 7 Calculated on a cumulative year -to -year basis. 8 See Table 7 for projection of LMI Fund expenditures (CCRL Sections 33413(b)(1) and (2) and 33334.2 and /or 33334.6). 9 Per Agency staff, Mountain View (Gisler Field),59 units: a single family detached development, will be completed with 4 units restricted to the very low - income category and 11 units restricted to low - and moderate - income persons and families. 10 Per Agency staff, Tract 5181, 8 units: a single family detached development with one (1) low -@Ad ;moderate income unit. 11 Per Agency staff, Far West Condominium development, 79 units with 5 YeFy IGw IAvQFne, aAd with 7 low --aad Aw4erate- income units did an tldthahal igge requtGepxent, 12 Per Agency staff, Pacific Communities Corte Bello development, 247 single family, detached units with 22 low -aaa moderato income units. Additionally, approximately $900,000 will be made available to construct other affordable units. 13 Per Agency staff, Archstone Communities, 312 multi - family units, with 25 very low- income units and 37 lower -edera4e� income units. 12/ 29/ 99M : \GMITCHELL \MOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPD 36 EXCESS SURPLUS An excess surplus exists when the unexpended and unencumbered amount in an agency's LMI Fund exceeds the greater of $1 million or the total amount deposited in an agency'sLMI Fund during the preceding four years. The first date that an excess surplus could have existed was July 1, 1994. Table 7 shows that the Agency will start the 1999 -2004 planning period with an estimated $1,273,206 in its LMI Fund. The Agency is allowed to adjust the unencumbered LMI Fund balance by subtracting any bond proceeds remaining in theLMI Fund. As a result of this adjustment, the Agency does not currently have an excess surplus. Based upon LMI Fund expenditure projections for the five-year planning period, the Agency will not be affected by an excess surplus situation during this time period. FAIR SHARE HOUSING ALLOCATION In 1980 Assembly Bill 2853 was adopted requiring all councils of governments to develop regional allocations of housing needs for all income categories (fair share of housing) based on regional housing needs The Southern California Association of Governments PCAG) has determined the housing needs for the City of Moorpark. Table 19 identifies the City's estimated 1998 -2005 housing need by income. This data reaffirms the need for the Agency to assist in the provision of very low -, low -, and moderate- income housing and the nexus to CCRL Section 33334.4. W.: , 1998 -2005 NO. OF % OF INCOME GROUP UNITS TOTAL Very low (0 - 50% County Median Income) 242 46704 Other lower (50 - 80% County Median Income) Ua gg a-1 % 19 Moderate (80 - 120% County Median Income) 23 aS. °4 WE4' Above Moderate (over 120% County Median Income) 633 s_. 522% TOTAL UNITS 4243 100% �r1s Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Housing Needs Assessment Calculator (www.scag.ca.gov). Please note that these numbers are subject to change before final SCAG action. CCRL Section 33334.4 describes the nexus between City and Agency fair share housing requirements by requiring each Agency to expend, over the duration of its redevelopment plans, the monies in the LMI Fund to assist housing for persons of very low- and low- income in at least the same proportion as the total number of housing units needed for those income 12/ 29/ 99M :\GMITCHELLIMOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.wPD . 38 groups which are not being provided by other governmental programs bears to the total number of units needed for persons of very low -, low- and moderate- income within the community. TEN -YEAR AND LIFE -OF- THE -PLAN HOUSING REQUIREMENTS Section 33490(a)(2)(B) of the CCRL requires that: (B) For each project area to which subdivision (b) of Section 33413 applies, the section addressing the agency developed and project area housing shall contain: (i) Estimates of the number of new, substantially rehabilitated or price- restricted residential units to be developed or purchased within one or more project areas, both over the Life-of-the-plan and during the next 10 years. (ii) Estimates of the number of units of very low -, low -, and moderate - income households required to be developed within one or more project areas in order to meet the requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 33413, both over the Life -of- the -plan and during the next 10 years. As indicated in Table 17, 705 units are expected to be built during the 1999 -2004 planning period. Of these, 34 units are expected to be available to very low - income households and a total of 78 units are expected to be available to low- or moderate- income households. After development of these 705 units there remains in the Project Area only two large parcels that are vacant and residentially zoned. The larger parcel, of approximately 285 acres has over one -third of the proposed development located within the Project Area. The estimated units within this area have not been finalized. The other parcel is owned by the Moorpark Unified School District. The School District considers this a surplus property and has expressed interest in transferring ownership of the property so that housing, units can be developed on the site. City Staff estimates that approximately 80 units could be built by a developer on the site pending School DistriQt ap City approval of necessary land use and zoning changes. In addition to the School District parcel, residential development occurring - within the Project Area will be on a parcel by parcel basis consisting of tear down and replacement or other single unit infill developments. Taking this into consideration, Agency staff estimates that no more than 120 additional units could be constructed in the Project Area during the 2004 -2009 planning period. Of the 120 new units which could be constructed, seven (7) units (6% of 120 units) must be available to very low- income residents and eleven (11) units (9% of 120 units) must be available to low- or moderate - income residents per the "inclusionary rule" during the 2004 -2009 planning period. 12/ 29/ 99M : \GMITCHELL\MOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPD 39 TEN -YEAR AND LIFE -OF -THE -PLAN HOUSING REQUIREMENTS Section 33490(a)(2)(B) of the CCRL requires that: (B) For each project area to which subdivision (b) of Section 33493 applies, the section addressing the agency developed and project area housing shall contain: (i) Estimates of the number of new, substantially rehabilitated or price- restricted residential units to be developed or purchased within one or more project areas, both over the Life-of-the-plan and during the next 10 years. (ii) Estimates of the number of units of very low -, low -, and moderate- income households required to be developed within one or more project areas in order to meet the requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 33413, both over the Life-of-the-plan and during the next 10 years. As indicated in Table 17, 705 units are expected to be built during the 1999 -2004 planning period. Of these, 34 units are expected to be available to very low- income households and a total of 78 units are expected to be available to low- or moderate - income households. After development of these 705 units there remains in the Project Area only two large parcels that are vacant and residentially zoned. The larger parcel, of approximately 285 acres has over one -third of the proposed development located within the Project Area. The estimated units within this area have not been finalized. The other parcel is owned by the Moorpark Unified School District. The School District considers this a surplus property and has expressed interest in transferring- ownership 'of the property so that housing units can be developed on the site. City Staff estimates that approximately 80 units could be built by a developer on the site pending City approval of necessary land use and zoning changes. In addition to the School District parcel, residential development occurring within the Project Area will be on a parcel by parcel basis consisting of tear down and replacement or other single unit infill developments. Taking this into consideration, Agencystaff estimates that no more than 120 additional units could be constructed in the Project Area during the 2004 - 2009 planning period'. Of the 120 new units which could be constructed, seven (7) units (6 % of 120 units) must be available to very low - income residents and eleven (11) units (9 % of 120 units) must be available to low- or moderate- income residents per the "inclusionary rule" during the 2004 -2009 planning period. 36 For the remaining life of the Redevelopment Plan after 2009, Agency staff estimates that an additional 40 units could be built by developers in the Project Area as a result of tear down and replacement or small infill development. Should this number of units be built over the remaining life of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency would be responsible for 2 very low - income units (6% of 40 units) and 4 low- or moderate -§ income units (9% of 40 units) per the "inclusionary rule ". CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT Section 33413(b)(4) requires that each agency, "...as part of the Implementation Plan required by Section 33490, shall adopt a [Housing Production] Plan..,." Section 33413 (b)(4) requires that "[t]he Plan shall be consistent with ... the community's housing element." Additionally, "[t]he Plan shall be reviewed and, if necessary, [be] amended at least-every five years in conjunction with either the housing element cycle or the Plan implementation cycle." Chapter V of the State's General Plan Guidelines (the "Guidelines ") states that the term "'consistent with' " means " 'agreement with; harmonious with.' " The general rule of consistency outlined in the Guidelines is that "[a]n action or a program is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment." The City's Housing Element currently includes the following goals related to affordable housing: "Overall Goal 2: Adequate provision of housing allowing maximum choice by type, tenure and location with particular attention to the provision of housing for the elderly, low and moderate income - families, handicapped and other households identified as having special housing needs. "Section 2 Goal 2: Meet the needs of current residents of the City of Moorpark by upgrading affordable, low and moderate income units through improvement of existing housing units and promoting greater housing affordability. "Section 3 Goal 2: Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the - needs of low and moderate income households. The Housing Element is currently in the process of being updated. In compliance with Section 33490 of the CCRL, the Agency has developed, and included in this Implementation _ Plan, a.series of goals and objectives specific to the Project Area. Included in Section IV is the following housing- specific goal and related objectives:. ° State law references three income groups to benefit from redevelopment agency housing programs: very low, low, and moderate. The Moorpark Redevelopment Agency currently requires new projects to satisfy this obligation by serving those individuals that qualify as "very low and low" income. 37 GOAL NO. III INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF VERY LOW -, LOW - AND MODERATE- INCOME HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, BOTH FOR OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL MARKETS OBJECTIVES: 111.1 Promote and participate in public /private partnerships with non -profit and for profit developers and /or property owners to rehabilitate existing rental units for very-low and low- income families. 111.2 Develop and implement owner- occupied, revolving loan program(s) for low- and moderate- income families. 111.3 Increase the number of senior rentals at all income levels. 111.4 Work with property owners and the development community to identify in fill parcels and to develop housing units for very low -, low -, and moderate- income families. Inasmuch as i) the Agency is working to provide affordable housing for all income levels, and most specifically housing for persons of very low -, low- and moderate- incomes; ii) the Agency is required to spend no less than 20 percent of all tax increment monies on affordable housing programs; and iii) the Agency has identified, in Section VI of this Plan, those housing projects and programs and the number of dwelling units that it projects to develop, rehabilitate or assist development or rehabilitation of, the Agency hereby determines that its proposed housing five -year goals and objectives, ongoing activities, and housing production plan, as outlined in Section' VI of this Plan, are consistent with the housing element of the City's General Plan. VIL. CONCLUSION This Implementation Plan describes the programs which are proposed to be undertaken by the Agency during the next five years in order to assist in the alleviation of blighting conditions existing in the Project Area, and to increase the community's supply of affordable - housing. Redevelopment is, however, a very fluid process subject to a myriad of changing issues and the forces of market dynamics. For these reasons a provision for review and amendment to the Implementation Plan has been included in redevelopment law.. -The CCRL requires that the implementation plan be the subject of periodic public review. This review must be held in a noticed public hearing at least once during the five -year period, no earlier than two years and no later than three years after adoption of the Implementation Plan. In addition to the mandated review, the Agency may review and amend the plans, goals, objectives and programs and expenditures (following a noticed public hearing) at any time conditions require such an amendment. 38 The following pages show changes made in Legislative Format q to the MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Five Year Implementation Plan (1999 -2004) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. ............................1.. Regulatory Framework - Ab AB 1290 ..................................... ..............................1 Requirement for Implementation Plan ..................................... ..............................1 IV. 1999 -2004 AGENCY GENERAL REDEVELOPMENT FUND GOALS AND OBJECTIVES....................................................................................... ............................7.. V. PROPOSED AGENCY GENERAL REDEVELOPMENT FUND PROGRAMS AND RELATED EXPENDITURES (1999 to 2004) ..................................... ..............................8 V1. AGENCY PRODUCTION, IMPROVEMENT AND PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ................................................................ .............................14 Agency Compliance Requirements ....................................... .............................14 The"Replacement Rule" ........................................................ ............................1.4 The "Inclusionary Rule" ......................................................... .............................15 Terms of Affordability ............................................................. .............................15 Definition of Affordable Housing ............................:............... .............................16 Inclusionary Housing Plan Requirement ................................ .............................16 Use of Fund Monies Outside the Project Area ....................... .............................17 1999 -2004 Affordable Housing Goal and Objectives ............. .............................17 Low- and Moderate- income Housing Fund ............................ .............................18 Projectsand Programs_ ......................................................... .............................18 Nexus Between Expenditure for Housing Projects and Programs and Blight Elimination........ ..................................................................... .............................22 Current Status of Agency Affordable Housing Compliance (1995- 1999) ............ 22 Projected Housing Units Analysis .......................................... .............................28 ExcessSurplus ..................................................................... .............................35 Ten -year and Life -of -the -plan Housing Requirements ........... .............................36 Consistency with City's General Plan Housing Element ........ .............................37 VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. .............................38 12129/ 99M : \GMITCHELLWIOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPD i As shown in Table 2, the Agency has been active in implementing the goals and objectives set forth in both the Initial Implementation Plan and the Initial Update, and the development actions set forth in the Redevelopment Plan in a way to lessen conditions of blight and improve the overall economic and physical condition of the Project Area. However, as described in the following section, blight remains in the Project Area. The Agency's resources will . continue to play an integral role in its ability to remedy those negative conditions within the Project Area. III. IDENTIFICATION OF KEY BLIGHTING CONDITIONS The conditions of blight which existed in the Project Area in 1989 when the Redevelopment Plan was adopted are described in Section III of the Agency's Report to the City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment Project (the "Report to the City Council ") which was presented to the City Council in July, 1989. The Report to the City Council is on file at the Agency's offices located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. The Report is incorporated herein by reference. Conditions within the Project Area, with the exception of improvements caused by the implementation of Agency- sponsored projects and programs and projects (please see Table 121 29/ 99M : \GMITCHELL\MOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPDO, Agency Type of Ite Accomplishme Participatio m Date nt Description n1 17 1999 Housing Negotiated a development agreement providing 62 additional e, f Development affordable rental units at the Archstone housing development project (20% of the Project) 18 1999 Housing Negotiated a development agreement with MP Group LLC e, f Development providing 22 low - income units and $900,000 fe; develepis .a# for affordable housing purposes. 19 1999 Housing Imposed a development condition with Far West Homes e, f Development providing 7 units for low- income households plus $300,000 for - for affordable housing purposes. 20 1999 Housing Imposed a development condition with Asadurian for 1 low- e, f Development income unit. 21 1999 Market Funded a Downtown Market Analysis Study to provide the c Analysis Agency with a development concept and tools to revitalize the downtown 22 1999 Business Implemented business retention effort that included identifying c, g Retention target businesses, welcome and introduction letters, and CEO visits 1KEY a - Funding e - Housing Opportunities b - Recruitment and Planning f - Negotiations Assistance g - Program Development. c - Business Source: City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency, November 1999. Retention/Development d - Fund Raising As shown in Table 2, the Agency has been active in implementing the goals and objectives set forth in both the Initial Implementation Plan and the Initial Update, and the development actions set forth in the Redevelopment Plan in a way to lessen conditions of blight and improve the overall economic and physical condition of the Project Area. However, as described in the following section, blight remains in the Project Area. The Agency's resources will . continue to play an integral role in its ability to remedy those negative conditions within the Project Area. III. IDENTIFICATION OF KEY BLIGHTING CONDITIONS The conditions of blight which existed in the Project Area in 1989 when the Redevelopment Plan was adopted are described in Section III of the Agency's Report to the City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment Project (the "Report to the City Council ") which was presented to the City Council in July, 1989. The Report to the City Council is on file at the Agency's offices located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. The Report is incorporated herein by reference. Conditions within the Project Area, with the exception of improvements caused by the implementation of Agency- sponsored projects and programs and projects (please see Table 121 29/ 99M : \GMITCHELL\MOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPDO, uses 3. The program will commence during FY 1999 -00 and continue during the entire term of this Implementation Plan. The Agency will focus on the disposition of property it has acquired as well as land which is currently vacant or underutilized. Funding projections for a property acquisition and disposition program are very difficult to make; therefore the Agency has projected up to $1.5 million for this program over the next five years. 3. Storm Drain Improvements: Along Shasta Avenue and at various other locations within the Project Area, the Agency will provide improvements (including repairs, increased capacity and new construction, as appropriate) to the storm drain system. The Shasta Avenue work is budgeted at $200,000 and scheduled to occur in FY 2003 -04; the balance of work program is projected to cost up to $1 million and is scheduled to be completed in phases during the term of this Implementation Plan. These improvements will benefit the entire Project Area and specifically residential uses (along Shasta Avenue) and office and retail uses. 5.4. General Infrastructure Improvements to the Downtown: The Agency has projected the expenditure of approximately $60,000 to provide sidewalk repairs and improvements along High Street and Moorpark Avenue in the downtown area. These improvements will include landscaping, hardscape improvements, planters, curbs and gutters. The work is scheduled to occur during FY 2001 -02. 6-5. Business Loan Program: The Agency anticipates a major business loan program for the downtown area during the 5 -year term of this Implementation Plan. This program will be funded with $500,000 for use as loans for structural improvements (including the rehabilitation of structures constructed with unreinforced masonry), and capital expenditures. DESCRIPTION OF HOW PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS ELIMINATE BLIGHT IN THE PROJECT AREA Section 33490(a)(1)(A) of the CCRL also requires that the implementation plan prepared by each agency provide an explanation of how the program and expenditures will eliminate blight within the project area. Table 6 on page 13 shows the relationship of the proposed projects /program categories to the eradication of remaining blight, as defined in Sections 33030 and 33031 of the CCRL, within the Project Area. 3 Relocation of a fire station to High Street has been proposed. 12129/ 99M :\GMITCHELLIMOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WP4 3 List of Programs and Projects 1. Housing Rehabilitation Loan Pro ram: This program provides home improvement loans within the Project Area. The most common repair has been re- roofing, followed by exterior painting and plumbing repairs. Loans can be up to $20,000 and are available to very low- and low- income persons and families. Loans in the very low- income category are at 0 percent interest with the principal amount due on sale or change in ownership. Loans in the low- income category are at 3 percent and are amortized over 10 years.' The Agency has projected annual costs for this program to equal approximately $300,000 per year. 2. Mobile home Rehabilitation Loan Program In October, 1998 the Agency established its mobile home rehabilitation loan program which is similar to the housing rehabilitation program except that the loan limit is $6,500 with the possibility of an increase to $9,750 for special circumstances. Loans in the very low- income category are for 0 percent interest with a 10 -year call, those in the low- income category are for 3 percent interest amortized over 7 years. Commencing in FY 2000 -01 and annually thereafter, the Agency projects expending $150,000 per year on this program. 3. First Time Homebuyer Program: The Agency is proposing to initiate a First Time Homebuyer Program in FY 2001 -02 and is anticipating assisting 7 units per year thereafter. The Agency has projected a need for approximately $140,000 per year for this program. 4. New Construction: As shown in Table 17 on page 33, the Agency is projecting that it will cause the income restriction of 112 new units over the term of this Implementation Plan commencing in FY 2000 -01. The Agencyaatisipates and City Anticipate receiving $300,000 from the Far West Homes development in FY 2001 -02 and $900,000 from the Pacific Communities Costa Bella development in approximately FY 2002 -03. The Agency intends to use the balance of its LM Fund funds reserved for other affordable housing programs and projects (commencing in FY 2000 -01 and including the $300,000 and $900,000 projected to be received in FY 2001 -02 and FY 2002 -03) to assist developers in financing the restrictive covenants necessary to assure that the 112 units are income restricted in a manner sufficient for the Agency to secure appropriate 9nclusionary" credits. 7 Housing rehabilitation loans for structures outside the Project Area are made with City funds through the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund. 121 29/ 99M :1GMITCHELL\MOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPD 23 PROJECTED HOUSING UNITS ANALYSIS Tables 14 through 18 present an analysis of the Agency's housing assistance activities projected to occur within the 1999 -2004 planning period using the programs and methods of assistance described in the other sections of this Implementation Plan. The information contained in these tables, in concert with the other parts of this Implementation Plan, ensure compliance with CCRL Sections 33490, 33413, 33334.2 and /or 33334.6, 33334.3 and 33334.4. The tables represent what is required by law regarding affordability, replacement and inclusionary requirements established in the CCRL and discussed at the beginning of this section of the Implementation Plan. Table 14: Table 14 shows that no (0) units within the Project Area are proposed to be destroyed or removed from the affordable housing market by the Agency during the time period covered by this Implementation Plan. Therefore, the Agency is projected to have no "replacement" requirements over the term of this Implementation Plan. Table 15: This table shows that no (0) units are being proposed for development or substantial rehabilitation directly by the Agency inside the Project Area during the 1999 -2004 planning period. Table 16: Table 16 shows that no (0) units are proposed to be developed or substantially rehabilitated outside the Project Area directly by the Agency during the time period covered by this Implementation Plan. Table 17: Table 17 provides an analysis of all units projected to be constructed or substantial rehabilitated within the Project Area either with or without assistance from the Agency. Please refer to Table 12 for an accounting of information provided in the "Balance Forward" row. Agency staff estimates that there is sufficient, market demand, and available, residentially -zoned land, to accommodate the development of a{ aroma aatsly -Egp 705 new residential units in the Project Area over the term of the Implementation Plan. The bulk of these units, some 638 units, are projected to be constructed in FY 2001 -02 and FY 2002 -03 with the development of three projects: the Far West Condominiums, Pacific Communities single family residences, and the Archstone Communities. As further described in Footnotes 11, 12 and 13 on Table 17, all three of these developments will contain some number of income- restricted units. As shown in the Table, the Agency has projected that fully 442 107 units ( 15 percent) of these 700 new units will be income restricted. Thirty -four of these units will be restricted to persons and families of very low- income and 78 will be income restricted to persons and families of to income. At the end of the planning period for this Implementation Plan, the Agency has projected that it will have a deficit of 10 very low- income units and a surplus of 13 low- and moderate - income units. The Agency will need to make every effort to reduce the-inclusionary deficit in the very low- income category over the term of the third Implementation Plan. 121 29/ 99M :\GMITCHELLIMOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPID 31 UNITS REQUIRED TO BE AVAILABLE AT AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST MONITORING gog NO. OF UNITS DEVELOPED BY OTHERS VERY LOW' LOW - MODERATE', rr `tj" 1 2 3 ' ANNUAL DEFICIT ANNUAL SURPLUS DIFFERENCE'-4 SUBSTANTIAL REHA82 m u z (REQUIRED „���z�" -`` tREQUIRED (IF ANY) (IF ANY) (DEFICIT [-]Y(SURPLUSI +D NEW TO TO FISCAL CONSTRUC MULTI- SINGLE BE 6% OF t - BE 9% OF YEAR -TION FAMILY FAMILY COLUMN 3) COLUMN 3) VERY LOW LOW -MOD VERY LOW LOW -MOD VERY LOW LOW -MOD - - .. °� � - r .„ s � &•.; rµ � � tea° r sxu x ma � _ z"'� c ,, r .cv mz y z 1999 -00 0 0 -1 -2 [WIN, 2000 -01 679.10 4 02 6.03 0.02 5.97 -1 +4 2001 -02 32611 12 0u 19 56 k` 29.34 r 44.5G19.56 34 -46-20 +4 V, wgggq 2002-03 31213 0 aw-1 ;, mss 18 72� 28.08 6.28 8.92 -40 -14 +13 t r, 2003 -04 0 0 !�'� y A 40-14 +13 "t i "' v r tv 1' .>5�• - - cr,: .r 3 "i'',r • : �"° �a t ' „ .'rcr r; ac.gg. ,rva 6 wiff 1 Complies with CCRL Section 33413(b)(2) & (c) & (d)(1). The Agency shall require that the aggregate number of replacement units remain available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of low -, moderate -, and very low- income households for the longest feasible time, as determined by the Agency, except as provided for in CCRL Section 33413(c)(1)(2). 2 "Substantial Rehabilitation" means rehabilitation, the value of which constitutes 25% of the after rehabilitation value of the unit, inclusive of the land value. Inclusionary obligation only arises when multi - family rental units with 3 or more units are substantially rehabilitated, or when single family units with 1 or 2 units are substantially rehabilitated using Agency assistance. 3 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50105 4 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50079.5 5 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50093 6 The Agency may cause, by agreement or regulation, to be available, at affordable housing costs, to persons of low -, moderate- or very low- income households, two units outside the Project Area for each unit that otherwise would have had to be available inside the Project Area. 7 Calculated on a cumulative year -to -year basis. 8 See Table 7 for projection of LMI Fund expenditures (CCRL Sections 33413(b)(1) and (2) and 33334.2 and /or 33334.6). 9 Per Agency staff, Mountain View (Gisler Field),59 units: a single family detached development, will be completed with 4 units restricted to the very low- income category and 11 units restricted to low - and moderate - income persons and families. 10 Per Agency staff, Tract 5181, 8 units: a single family detached development with one (1) low -aad ipiadarata. income unit. 11 Per Agency staff, Far West Condominium development, 79 units with with 7 low- aad.metlaraia- Income units and an additional $300,000 in lieu of the very low housing requirement. 12 Per Agency staff, Pacific Communities Corta Bello development, 247 single family, detached units with 22low- aadAwdacata- income units. Additionally, approximately $900,000 will be made available to construct other affordable units. 12/ 29/ 99M :\GMITCHELLIMOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPD 36 0 EXCESS SURPLUS An excess surplus exists when the unexpended and unencumbered amount in an agency's LMI Fund exceeds the greater of $1 million or the total amount deposited in an agency'sLMI Fund during the preceding four years. The first date that an excess surplus could have existed was July 1, 1994. Table 7 shows that the Agency will start the 1999 -2004 planning period with an estimated $1,273,206 in its LMI Fund. The Agency is allowed to adjust the unencumbered LMI Fund balance by subtracting any bond proceeds remaining in theLMl Fund. As a result of this adjustment, the Agency does not currently have an excess surplus. Based uporr LMI Fund expenditure projections for the five -year planning period, the Agency will not be affected by an excess surplus situation during this time period. FAIR SHARE HOUSING ALLOCATION In 1980 Assembly Bill 2853 was adopted requiring all councils of governments to develop regional allocations of housing needs for all income categories (fair share of housing) based on regional housing needs The Southern California Association of Governments ISSCAG) has determined the housing needs for the City of Moorpark. Table 19 identifies the City's estimated 1998 -2005 housing need by income. This data reaffirms the need for the Agency to assist in the provision of very low -, low -, and moderate- income housing and the nexus to CCRL Section 33334.4. 3 4e # sl E 5 x 1998 -2005 NO. OF % OF INCOME GROUP UNITS TOTAL Very low (0 - 50% County Median Income) 253 46„Z°ls 21.4% Other lower (50 - 80% County Median Income) 444 146 12.4% Moderate (80 - 120% County Median Income) ? 360 49,5. °4, 30.5 % Above Moderate (over 120% County Median Income) 6U 422 ° 35.7% TOTAL UNITS 4243 100% 1182 Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Housing Needs Assessment Calculator (www.scag.ca.gov). Please note that these numbers are subject to change before final SCAG action. CCRL Section 33334.4 describes the nexus between City and Agency fair share housing requirements by requiring each Agency to expend, over the duration of its redevelopment plans, the monies in the LMl Fund to assist housing for persons of very low- and low- income in at least the same proportion as the total number of housing units needed for those income 121 29/ 99M :\GMITCHELL\MOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPD 38 groups which are not being provided by other governmental programs bears to the total number of units needed for persons of very low -, low- and moderate - income within the community. TEN -YEAR AND LIFE -OF- THE -PLAN HOUSING REQUIREMENTS Section 33490(a)(2)(B) of the CCRL requires that: (B) For each project area to which subdivision (b) of Section 33413 applies, the section addressing the agency developed and project area housing shall contain: (i) Estimates of the number of new, substantially rehabilitated or price - restricted residential units to be developed or purchased within one or more project areas, both over the Life -of -the -plan and during the next 10 years. (ii) Estimates of the number of units of very low -, low -, and moderate - income households required to be developed within one or more project areas in order to meet the requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 33413, both over the Life-of-the-plan and during the next 10 years. As indicated in Table 17, 705 units are expected to be built during the 1999 -2004 planning period. Of these, 34 units are expected to be available to very low- income households and a total of 78 units are expected to be available to low- or moderate- income households. After development of these 705 units there remains in the Project Area only two large parcels that are vacant and residentially zoned. The larger parcel, of approximately 285 acres has over one -third of the proposed development located within the Project Area. The estimated units within this area have not been finalized. The other parcel is owned by the Moorpark Unified School District. The School District considers this a surplus property and has expressed interest in transferring ownership of the property so that housing units can be developed on the site. City Staff estimates that approximately 80 units could be built by a developer on the site pending SGhod Qistrirt and City approval of necessary land use and zoning changes. In addition to the School District parcel, residential development occurring within the Project Area will be on a parcel by parcel basis consisting of tear down and replacement or other single unit infill developments. Taking this into consideration, Agency staff estimates that no more than 120 additional units could be constructed in the Project Area during the 2004 -2009 planning period. Of the 120 new units which could be constructed, seven (7) units (6% of 120 units) must be available to very low- income residents and eleven (11) units (9% of 120 units) must be available to low - or moderate- income residents per the "inclusionary rule" during the 2004 -2009 planning period. For the remaining life of the Redevelopment Plan after 2009, Agency staff estimates that an additional 40 units could be built by developers in the Project Area as a result of tear down and replacement or small infill development. Should this number of units be built over the remaining life of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency would be responsible for 2 very low- 12/ 29/ 99M :1GMITCHELLIMOORPARKIMPPLAN.V2 LINE CHANGES.WPD 39 MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FIVE -YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1999-2004 MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (including CCRL Section 33413(b)(4) Housing Compliance Plan) prepared by URBAN FUTURES, INC. 3111 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 230 Orange, CA 92865 (714) 283 -9334 January 5, 2000 t u TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION Regulatory Framework - AB 1290 Requirement for Implementation Plan I.I. HISTORY OF THE MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY III. IDENTIFICATION OF KEY BLIGHTING CONDITIONS IV. 1999 -2004 AGENCY GENERAL REDEVELOPMENT FUND GOALS AND OBJECTIVES V. PROPOSED AGENCY GENERAL REDEVELOPMENT FUND PROGRAMS AND RELATED EXPENDITURES (1999 to 2004) VI. AGENCY PRODUCTION, IMPROVEMENT AND PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING Agency Compliance Requirements The "Replacement Rule" The " Inclusionary Rule" Terms of Affordability Definition of Affordable Housing Inclusionary Housing Plan Requirement Use of Fund Monies Outside the Project Area 1999 -2004 Affordable Housing Goal and Objectives Low- and Moderate- income Housing Fund Projects and Programs Nexus Between Expenditure for Housing Projects and Programs and Blight Elimination Current Status of Agency Affordable Housing Compliance (1995 -1999) Projected Housing Units Analysis Excess Surplus Ten -year and Life -of- the -plan Housing Requirements Consistency with City's General Plan Housing Element VII. CONCLUSION Page 1 1 1 C 7 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 WIA 22 28 35 36 37 9 z7 ry LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Redevelopment Plan Features 2 2 Inventory of Accomplishments: 1995 —1999 4 3 Summary of Blight Conditions Remaining Wit in the Project Area 6 4 Goals Nexus to Blight Elimination' 9 5 Projected General Redevelopment Fund Program Receipts and Expenditures 10 6 Program and Expenditures Nexus to Blight Elimination 13 7 Estimated Agency Lmi Fund Receipts and Expenditures Fiscal Year 1999 -00 Through Fiscal Year 2003 -04 19 8 Program and Expenditures Nexus to Blight Elimination 21 9 Total Units Destroyed or Removed Pursuant o Agency Involvement and Inventory of Replacement Dwellin Units Provided, Project Adoption Through June 1999 23 10 Total Units Developed and Substantially Rehabilitated Inside Project Area Directly by Agency, Project Adopt on Through June 1999 24 11 Total Units Developed and Substantially Rehabilitated Outside Project Area Directly by Agency' Project Adoption Through June 1999 25 12 All Non- agency Developed and Substantially Rehabilitated Dwelling Units Within the Project Area' Plan Adoption Through June 1999 26 13 Total Agency Assisted Units and Inclusionary Units' Project Area Adopted Through June 1999 27 14 Estimated No. Of Units to Be Destroyed in the Project Area & Estimated Number of Replacement Dwelling Units July 1999 - June 2004 30 15 Estimate of Total Units to Be Developed and ubstantially Rehabilitated Inside Project Area by Agency' July 19 9 - June 2004 31 16 Estimate of Total Units to Be Developed and ubstantially Rehabilitated Outside Project Area by Agency ii 32 18 Estimated Total Agency Assisted Units and Inclusionary Units Available' July 1999- June 2004 34 19 Fair Share Housing Allocation 1998 -2005 (7.5 Years) 35 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Map of the Project Area 3 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1- AGENCY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AS SET FORTH IN THE INITIAL UPDATE r7 ft 18 Estimated Total Agency Assisted Units and Inclusionary Units Available' July 1999- June 2004 34 19 Fair Share Housing Allocation 1998 -2005 (7.5 Years) 35 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Map of the Project Area 3 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1- AGENCY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AS SET FORTH IN THE INITIAL UPDATE v MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FIVE -YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1999 -2004 MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION REGULATORY FRAMEWORK - AB 1290 Assembly Bill 1290 ( "AB 1290 "), sponsored by the California Redevelopment Association, took effect January 1, 1994. Entitled the Community Redevelopment Law Reform Act of 9993, AB 1290 included significant changes, in the California Community Redevelopment Law (CCRL). The changes affected both existing project areas and new redevelopment plan adoptions, and generally included i) modifications to the definition of blight, ii) the demise of fiscal review committees and assistance to certain sales tax inducing projects, iii) prohibition against city /county hall construction and /or rehabilitation, iv) time limits on certain redevelopment plan fiscal provisions, v) the repeal of authority to receive sales tax revenues (up to 1%), vi) "use it or lose it" inducements for agencies to spend their Low /Moderate Income (LMI) housing funds (mandatory 20 % set -aside funds), and vii) establishment of a nexus between inclusionary and replacement housing requirements and implementation plans. REQUIREMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN One of the AB 1290 provisions requires that each agency adopt a five -year implementation plan. The requirement for an implementation plan reflects a strong legislative concern that redevelopment activities should be connected with the blight that justified adoption of the redevelopment plan in the first place. Each agency that had adopted a redevelopment plan prior to December 31, 1993 was required to adopt, after a public hearing, an implementation plan on or before December 31, 1994. Thereafter a new implementation plan must be adopted every five years. In addition, at least once during the five -year period, a public hearing on the Implementation Plan is required. Among other requirements, an implementation plan must describe specific goals and objectives of the agency for the project area, specific programs, including potential projects and estimated expenditures to be made during the next five years, and explain how these goals, objectives, programs and expenditures will eliminate blight remaining in the project area(s) and implement the requirements of CCRL Sections 33334.2, 33334.4, 33334.6 and 33413. The implementation plan required of agencies with existing project areas must describe how the agency will implement both the requirement to increase, improve and preserve low- and moderate - income housing and satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement. The section of the Plan addressing the LMI Housing Fund (the `LMI Fund ") must describe the amount of funds available in the LMI Fund and the estimated amounts which will be deposited into the LMI Fund during each of the next five years as well as estimates of the expenditures of monies from the LMI Fund during each of the five years. If an implementation plan contains a project that will result in the destruction or removal of very low low -, or moderate - income housing which must be replaced pursuant to CCRL Section 33434, the agency is required to identify in the implementation plan proposed locations suitable for replacement dwellings. The Moorpark Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency ") adopted its initial Five -Year Implementation Plan (the "Initial Implementation Plan ") on December 7, 1994 (Resolution No. 94 -31) and updated that plan after a public hearing (the "Initial Update ") on December 17, 1997 (Resolution No. 97 -66). This implementation plan (the "Implementation Plan ") is the second implementation plan adopted by the Agency and is adopted pursuant to the requirements of CCRL 33490. 11. HISTORY OF THE MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS; 1994 -1999 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN GOALS & OBJECTIVES; AND AGENCY ACTIVITIES DIGEST BACKGROUND The Agency was established in 1987 for the primary purpose of effecting the elimination of blight and stimulating the City's economic base. Growth would occur primarily through the development of new public improvements, commercial and industrial projects, and affordable housing. The Agency adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the Moorpark Project Area (respectively the "Redevelopment Plan" and the "Project Area ") in 1989. Table 1 below is a summary of key Redevelopment Plan features. PROJECT AREA LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES The Moorpark Redevelopment Project, as shown in Figure 1, is oriented east to west generally along Poindexter Avenue and includes the old downtown area as well as portions of the "new" downtown area along .Los Angeles Avenue. The Project Area contains a variety of residential, commercial and industrial land uses. 2 D--A D- TT-U-- Implementation Plan Moorpark Redevelopment Agency I LEGEND Ed Redevelopment Project Area (Approximate Boundaries) Moorpark City Limits Pr-r . I* � ' Area. .1-9giect *0 X January, 2000 Figure I MP—ABI 290 , e � SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS Section 400 of the Redevelopment Plan contains the proposed development actions which the Agency would utilize to "eliminate and prevent the spread of blight in the Project Area ". These development actions are summarized below.' • Improvements to the public infrastructure • Acquisition and disposition of real property • Redevelopment of residential, commercial, or industrial land by private or public entities, including the financing thereof • Rehabilitation of structures or development of vacant land, as appropriate, by owners. • Other actions "as may be permitted by law." 1994 -1999 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FIVE -YEAR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES As a part of its Initial Implementation Plan, the Agency listed four (4) goals and twenty -six (26) objectives for redevelopment of the Project Area. As a part of the Initial Update, the Agency reviewed the goals and objectives contained in the Initial Implementation Plan and determined that the Goals and Objectives continued to reflect the focus of Agency activities during that implementation period. The goals and objectives from the Initial Update are included as Appendix 1 to this Implementation Plan. REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES DIGEST: 1995 -1999 Since adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and through the past five -year implementation planning period, the Agency has participated in several successful projects directed towards implementing its proposed development actions and fulfilling the goals and objectives identified in the Initial Implementation Plan and the Initial Update (found in Appendix 1). All of the projects implemented to date by the Agency have worked towards correcting public facilities deficiencies, economic development needs, infrastructure deficiencies, and providing housing which is affordable to persons and families of very low -, low -, and moderate- income. A summary of Agency activities during the past five - yearimplementation planning period is shown in Table 2. 1 The full list of these proposed actions in found on pages 2 and 3 of the Redevelopment Plan on file with the City Clerk of the City of Moorpark. 3 n , v � p 4 i�._ Type of Participationl Item Date Agency Accomplishment Description 1 1994 Boys & Girls Upgrade of club facilities a Club 2 1994 Various LA Avenue wall & landscaping; High Street improvements; a, c Infrastructure Flory Street improvements; Charles Street concrete work; Projects High Street gazebo 3 1995 Gisler Field Acquisition and subdivision of 30 -acre parcel (Gisler Field) a,b,e with reservation of 8 acres for affordable housing; 7 acres for downtown park; and 15 acres for retail and commercial project. 4 1995 Arroyo Vista Continuing improvements to Arroyo Vista Park a,g Park 5 1995/ Lease of High Lease of Agency -owned storefront property on High Street a,c,d,g 2000 Street Parcels to such uses as a restaurant, senior thrift store and office. 6 1996 Poindexter Park Development of a 7 -acre portion of Gisler Field as a,g Poindexter Park. 7 1996 Mission Bell II Phase II of a commercial retail center. Phase 11 includes a an 8 -plex theater, restaurant and retail stores. 8 1996/ RFP for Gisler Drafted and distributed an RFP for development of a,e,f 1999 Field Housing affordable housing on 8 -acre parcel previously subdivided from Gisler Field. Disposition of property for development of 15 low- and very low- housing units (1999). Construction to begin in 2000. 9 1996 Locate CHP Assisted in the lease of a CHP Office in the Project Area b,c,f Office 10 19961 Storm Drain Studies for (1995) and construction of the Moorpark a 1999 Avenue and Spring Road (1999) Storm Drains 11 1997 Business Loan Low interest loans for business in the High Street Area a, c Program 12 1998/ Business Activation of multi - jurisdictional teams to meet with c 1999 Attraction prospective businesses. Participated in regional business attraction campaign to attract specific businesses identified in regional cluster study 13 1997/ Housing Rehabilitated three housing units within the Project Area a 1998/ Rehabilitation (1998). Rehabilitated an additional two housing units 1999 within the Project Area (1999). 14 1997/ Mortgage Credit Established a Mortgage Credit Certificate Program to g 1998 Certificate provide a federal tax credit of 15% to eligible homebuyers Program 15 1998/ Downtown Street Construction of downtown alley improvements and street a 1999 Improvements overlays 16 1999 Mobile home Developed a Mobile home Rehabilitation Loan Program a, g Rehabilitation 4 J 9 a p As shown in Table 2, the Agency has been active in implementing the goals and objectives set forth in both the Initial Implementation Plan and the Initial Update, and the development actions set forth in the Redevelopment Plan in a way to lessen conditions of blight and improve the overall economic and physical condition of the Project Area. However, as described in the following section, blight remains in the Project Area. The Agency's resources will continue to play an integral role in its ability to remedy those negative conditions within the Project Area. Ill. IDENTIFICATION OF KEY BLIGHTING CONDITIONS The conditions of blight which existed in the Project Area in 1989 when the Redevelopment Plan was adopted are described in Section III of the Agency's Report to the City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment Project (the "Report to the City Council") which was presented to the City Council in July, 1989. The Report to the City Council is on file at the Agency's offices located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. The Report is incorporated herein by reference. Conditions within the Project Area, with the exception of improvements caused by the implementation of Agency- sponsored projects and programs and projects (please see Table 2) and other projects that may have been implemented without Agency assistance, remain the same as when the Redevelopment Plan was adopted in 1989. It is the Agency's intent 5 Type of Agency Item Date Accomplishment Description Participationl 17 1999 Housing Negotiated a development agreement providing 62 e, f Development additional affordable rental units at the Archstone housing development project (20% of the Project) 18 1999 Housing Negotiated a development agreement with MP Group LLC e, f Development providing 22 low- income units and $900,000 for affordable housing purposes. 19 1999 Housing Imposed a development condition with Far West Homes e, f Development providing 7 units for low- income households plus $300,000 for affordable housing purposes. 20 1999 Housing Imposed a development condition with Asadurian for 1 e, f Development low- income unit. 21 1999 Market Analysis Funded a Downtown Market Analysis Study to provide the c Agency with a development concept and tools to revitalize the downtown 22 1999 Business Implemented business retention effort that included c, g Retention identifying target businesses, welcome and introduction letters, and CEO visits 1KEY a - Funding e - Housing opportunities b - Recruitment and Planning f — Negotiations Assistance g - Program Development c - Business Retention/Development d - Fund Raising Source: City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency, November 1999. As shown in Table 2, the Agency has been active in implementing the goals and objectives set forth in both the Initial Implementation Plan and the Initial Update, and the development actions set forth in the Redevelopment Plan in a way to lessen conditions of blight and improve the overall economic and physical condition of the Project Area. However, as described in the following section, blight remains in the Project Area. The Agency's resources will continue to play an integral role in its ability to remedy those negative conditions within the Project Area. Ill. IDENTIFICATION OF KEY BLIGHTING CONDITIONS The conditions of blight which existed in the Project Area in 1989 when the Redevelopment Plan was adopted are described in Section III of the Agency's Report to the City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Moorpark Redevelopment Project (the "Report to the City Council") which was presented to the City Council in July, 1989. The Report to the City Council is on file at the Agency's offices located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021. The Report is incorporated herein by reference. Conditions within the Project Area, with the exception of improvements caused by the implementation of Agency- sponsored projects and programs and projects (please see Table 2) and other projects that may have been implemented without Agency assistance, remain the same as when the Redevelopment Plan was adopted in 1989. It is the Agency's intent 5 e ,S to continue its focus on the remedy of those remaining conditions of blight. Blighting conditions that remain in the Project Area, and their relationship to CCRL Sections 33030 and 33031, are shown in Table 3. BLIGHT DEFINITION PHYSICAL ECONOMIC CCRL Section 33031(a) CCRL Section 33031(b) Deficient, Deteriorated, or Dilapidated Buildings Prevalence of Economic Maladjustment Older or Obsolescent Buildings I Prevalence of Depreciated Values and Impaired Investments Mixed and Incompatible Buildings & Land Uses Lots of Irregular Form, Shape and Size Please refer to Pages 8 through 69 of the Report to the City Council for a more detailed description of blight in the Project Area. 2 Includes inadequate public improvements per CCRL Section 33030(c). IV. 1999 -2004, AGENCY GENERAL REDEVELOPMENT FUND GOALS AND OBJECTIVES2 CCRL Section 33490(a)(1) states that an implementation plan shall contain an agency's specific goals and objectives for the project area. As previously discussed in this Implementation Plan, the Agency adopted 4 goals and 26 objectives in its Initial Implementation Plan. The Agency did not substantially modify these goals or objectives in its Initial Update. However, as shown in Table 2 above, the Agency has takenactions which address all its goals and partially or wholly complete many of its stated objectives. As a consequence, the Agency has identified an alternative set of goals and objectives for the planning period covered by this Implementation Plan. These goals and objectives are more focused and reflect the progress the Agency has made in the implementation of its programs to date. The non - housing component of these goals and objectives is set forth below, the housing goal and objectives are set forth in Section VI of this Implementation Plan. 2 The Affordable Housing goals and objectives are included under Section VI of this Implementation Plan. M The Agency's-1999 -2004 Non - Housing Goals and Objectives are: GOAL NO. 1: ENCOURAGE AND AID ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROJECT AREA OBJECTIVES: 1.1 Improve the economic position of the downtown area. 1.2 Provide resources for establishing new and retaining and expanding existing commercial and industrial businesses in the Project Area. GOAL NO. 11 MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO PROJECT AREA INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC FACILITIES WHICH BENEFIT THE PROJECT AREA OBJECTIVES 11.1. Provide funding, as appropriate and feasible, for public facilities, such as parking facilities, which serve properties in the Project Area. 11.2 Continue funding for infrastructure improvements in the public way (including sewer, storm drain, water systems and surface improvements) which benefit the Project Area. 11.3. Reduce traffic congestion, improve public safety, and reduce parking deficiencies within the Project Area. 11.4. Expand Area of Poindextor Park. 11.5. Provide funding, as appropriate and feasible, for public service facilities such as a library, senior center and public safety facility. CCRL Section 33490(a)(1)(A) requires that each implementation plan prepared by an agency contain an "...explanation of how the goals and objectives... will eliminate blight within the Project Area...." Table 4 on the page 9 shows the relationship of the Agency's specific five -year goals and objectives to the eradication of remaining blight, as defined withinCCRL Sections 33030 and 33031, within the Project Area. V. PROPOSED AGENCY GENERAL REDEVELOPMENT FUND PROGRAMS AND RELATED EXPENDITURES (1999 to 2004) Section 33490(a)(1)(A) of the CCRL requires that the implementation plan prepared and adopted by each redevelopment agency contain "...the specific programs, including potential projects and estimated expenditures proposed to be made during the next five years...." In order to appropriately devise the programs to be established by the Agency to implement its goals and objectives, it is important to know the amount of money available for those 7 a 'o programs. Identified in Table 5 on page 10 is the Agency's general redevelopment fund estimated receipts and expenditures for the FY 1999 -00 through FY 2003 -04 planning period (the term of this Implementation Plan) for the Project Area. Table 5 shows the programs and projected total expenditures on an annual basis that are proposed by the Agency to help achieve its five -year specific goals and objectives, thereby helping to alleviate those blighting conditions remaining in the Project Area. Annual amounts available for expenditures are from projected tax increment and other available revenues including interest earned. Table 5 shows the Agency in an extremely healthy position at the beginning of the period of time covered by this Implementation Plan with over $6.5 million available. Tax increment 9 9 "5 t s sx KIM a 4 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS SUMMARY INFRASTRUCTURE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS SUMMARY ABNORMAL UNSAFE UNECONOMIC USE INCOMPATIBLE IRREGULAR SHAPED DEPRECIATED OR STAGNANT PRESENCE OF BUSINESS CONDITIONS, INADEQUATE BUILDINGS OF BUILDINGS LAND USES INADEQUATELY PROPERTY HAZARDOUS ABANDONED [BLDGS. PUBLIC GOALS2 SIZED PARCELS VALUES SUBSTANCES EXCESSIVE IMPROVEMENTS. ACANTLOTS Encourage and aid economic development in the Project Area • • • • • • • • Make improvements to Project Area infrastructure and Public Facilities which Benefit the Project Area • • • • • • • Increase the Supply of Very Low -, Low- and Moderate - Income Housing Opportunities, both for Ownership and Rental Markets3 • • • • • • 1 Complies with CCRL Section 33490(a)(1)(A). 2 Objectives are not shown here. For purposes of this matrix, attainment of Agency goals assumes realization of each of those objectives previously defined in Section IV of this Implementation Plan. 3 Discussion of this Goal statement is found in Section VI of this Implementation Plan. 9 10 FISCAL YEAR PROGRAM CATEGORY2 1999 -003 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 n - w, fi. 5 ' n � � � - y w w A. Tax Increment4 1,254,250 1,340,850 1,426,659 1,515,149 1,543,149 B. Interest Income 326,672 214,311 114,438 94,201 66,837 C. Bond Proceeds IN r� A. Economic Development6 130,366 495,000 575,000 h. 675,000 800,000 B. Infrastructure 141,000 194,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 C. Public Facilities D. Administration 435,174 443,877 452,755 461,810 471,046 E. Debt Service 1. City Loan $2,500,000 $1,800,000 2. Bond Debt $621,600 $619,738 $618,082 $619,716 $620,620 1 Complies with CCRL § 33490(a)(1)(A) 2 See Table 7 for LMI Fund Receipts and Expenditures Projections. 3 Beginning fund balance from draft, June 30, 1999 financial statements. 4 Calculated using a 2 %annual growth rate factor. 5 From Agency's FY 1999 -00 Budget, with estimated amounts thereafter 6 Includes payments for contractual services. 10 and interest income brings this amount to somewhat over $8 million available in FY 1999 -00. Of this $8 million, however, the Agency is scheduled to repay $2.5 million of its debt to the City, $622,000 in debt service payments and $435,000 in administration. Current budget estimates for general redevelopment fund expenditures in FY 1999 -00 for programs and projects, including contractual services, equals approximately $271,000. In FY 2000 -01 the Agency is scheduled to repay the balance of its debt to the City ($1.8 million) and approximately the same for debt service and administration as in FY 1999 -00. However, for FY 2000 -01, the Agency has projected a dramatic increase in funds available for programs and projects, including contractual services, to the amount of $733,000. During FY 2001 -02 through 2003 -04 the Agency is projecting a steady increase in expenditure for programs and projects, including contractual services, while keeping administration and debt service expenditures relatively constant. In spite of increasing expenditures, the Agency projects a healthy $555,060 available in its redevelopment general fund at the end of this five -year planning period. PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS Based upon the Goals and Objectives outlined above, and the available funds over the term of this Implementation Plan as shown in Table 5, the Agency has identified the following projects that it plans to initiate or continue over the next five fiscal years. It should be noted that many projects a redevelopment agency engages in are dependent upon private market involvement and, as such, their initiation and completion are not wholly controlled by the Agency. LIST OF PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS The six programs listed below focus on two aspects of the Project Area which the Agency intends to address over the term of this Implementation Plan: i) a revitalization of the downtown area, and ii) infrastructure improvements throughout the Project Area. The Agency has already commissioned its market feasibility plan for downtown and now intends to implement that plan. The implementation of that plan will continue to alleviate blight in the downtown area as described in the Report to Council. The infrastructure improvements described below will continue the process of alleviating blight throughout the Project Area. Downtown Parking Improvements: The Agency has budgeted $75,000 in FY 2001 -02 for improvements to land currently owned by the Agency to provide off - street parking in support of the existing and proposed retail and office uses along High Street and Moorpark Avenue. These improvements will include paving, striping and landscaping of the parking lots. 2. Downtown revitalization: Based on the "Downtown Market Feasibility Study" funded by the Agency (please see Item 21, Table 2), the Agency will initiate and implement a property acquisition, assembly and disposition program to attract commercial (both retail and commercial uses) and public facilities 11 uses 3. The program will commence during FY 1999 -00 and continue during the entire term of this Implementation Plan. The Agency will focus on the disposition of property it has acquired as well as land which is currently vacant or underutilized. Funding projections for a property acquisition and disposition program are very difficult to make; therefore the Agency has projected up to $1.5 million for this program over the next five years. 3. Storm Drain Improvements: Along Shasta Avenue and at various other locations within the Project Area, the Agency will provide improvements (including repairs, increased capacity and new construction, as appropriate) to the storm drain system. The Shasta Avenue work is budgeted at $200,000 and scheduled to occur in FY 2003 -04; the balance of work program is projected to cost up to $1 million and is scheduled to be completed in phases during the term of this Implementation Plan. These improvements will benefit the entire Project Area and specifically residential uses (along Shasta Avenue) and office and retail uses. 4. General Infrastructure Improvements to the Downtown: The Agency has projected the expenditure of approximately $60,000 to provide sidewalk repairs and improvements along High Street and Moorpark Avenue in the downtown area. These improvements will include landscaping, hardscape improvements, planters, curbs and gutters. The work is scheduled to occur during FY 2001 -02. - 5. Business Loan Program: The Agency anticipates a major business loan program for the downtown area during the 5 -year term of this Implementation Plan. This program will be funded with $500,000 for use as loans for structural improvements (including the rehabilitation of structures constructed with unreinforced masonry), and capital expenditures. DESCRIPTION OF HOW PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS ELIMINATE BLIGHT IN THE PROJECT AREA Section 33490(a)(1)(A) of the CCRL also requires that the implementation plan prepared by each agency provide an explanation of how the program and expenditures will eliminate blight within the project area. Table 6 on page 13 shows the relationship of the proposed projects /program categories to the eradication of remaining blight, as defined in Sections 33030 and 33031 of the CCRL, within the Project Area. 3 Relocation of a fire station to High Street has been proposed. 12 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS SUMMARY ECONOMIC CONDITIONS SUMMARY INFRASTRUCTURE ABNORMAL PROGRAMS & UNSAFE UNECONOMIC ;USE OF INCOMPATIBLE LAND IRREGULARLY SHAPED DEPRECIATED OR PRESENCE OF HAZARDOUS BUSINESS CONDITIONS, INADEQUATE EXPENDITURES= BUILDINGS BUILDINGSILOTS USES INADEQUATELY SIZED STAGNANT PROPERTY SUBSTANCES ABANDONED SLOGS, PUBLIC PARCELS VALUES EXCESSIVE VACANT IMPROVEMENTS LOTS Economic Development Infrastructure Affordable Housing 1 Complies with CCRL Section 33490(a)(1)(A). 2 Reference Section V, proposed Agency Programs and Related Expenditures for a projected expenditures analysis and estimated cost for each program. 13 n Y VI. AGENCY PRODUCTION, IMPROVEMENT AND PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGENCY COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS One of the fundamental goals of redevelopment in California is the production, improvement and preservation of a participating community's supply of housing affordable to very low -, and low- and moderate- income households. This goal is accomplished, in part, through the compliance with four different, but interrelated requirements imposed on redevelopment agencies by the CCRL. The requirements are as follows: • An agency must use at least 20 percent of tax increment revenue to increase, improve and preserve the supply of very low -, and low- and moderate- income housing in the community (CCRL Section 33334.2); • An agency must replace, in equal or greater number, very low, and low- and moderate- income housing units and bedrooms which are destroyed or removed as a result of a redevelopment project (the "replacement rule," CCRL Section 33413[a]); • An agency must ensure that a fixed percentage of all new or substantially rehabilitated dwelling units developed by an agency are affordable to very low -, low- and moderate income persons and families (the "inclusionary rule," CCRL Section 33413[b][1]); • An agency must ensure that a fixed percentage of all new and substantially, rehabilitated dwelling units developed within the project area by public or private entities or persons other than the Agency are affordable to very low -, low- and moderate - income persons (the "inclusionary rule," CCRL Section 33413[b][2]). CCRL Section 33413(b)(4) requires that, as part of an Implementation Plan, the Agency shall adopt a plan to comply with the requirements of the inclusionary rule. In addition, CCRL Sections 33413.5 and 33334.5 require replacement housing plans for compliance with the replacement rule. THE "REPLACEMENT RULE" Section 33413(a) of the CCRL requires that whenever dwelling units housing persons and families of low- or moderate income are destroyed or removed from the very low -, low- and moderate- income housing market as part of a redevelopment project subject to a written agreement with the agency or having been provided financial assistance by an agency, the agency shall, within four (4) years of the removal of the dwelling units, cause to be developed an equal number of replacement dwelling units which have an equal or greater number of bedrooms as those destroyed or removed units at affordable housing costs within the territorial jurisdiction of the agency. 14 For affordable units removed prior to September 1, 1989, replacement units must be available at an affordable housing costa to persons and families of low- and moderate- income (very low- income levels excluded therein) without regard to the specific income of the person or family originally occupying the removed dwelling unit. However, for units removed after September 1, 1989, California law requires that 75 percent of the replacement units must be affordable to the same income groups, inclusive of very low- income levels, that occupied the units removed or destroyed. THE "INCLUSIONARY RULE ,5 CCRL Section 33413(b)(1) requires that at least 30 percent of all dwelling units directly developed by a redevelopment agency shall be available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low- or moderate - income, and not less than 50 percent of the units shall be available at affordable housing to very low- income households. No residential units have been directly developed by the Redevelopment Agency either inside or outside the Project Area since the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. Section 33413(b)(2) of the CCRL requires that at least 15 percent of all dwelling units developed within a project area by public or private entities or persons other than the redevelopment_ agency shall be available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low- or moderate - income, and not less than 40 percent of the affordable units shall be available at affordable housing cost to very low- income households. To illustrate the inclusionary rule in terms of numbers, of every 100 dwelling units developed or rehabilitated by entities other than the agency, 15 shall be affordable, with nine affordable to persons of low -or moderate - income, and six available to persons of very low- income. To satisfy this requirement an agency may cause, by agreement or regulation, to be available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of low -or moderate - income, or to very low- income households, two units outside a project area for each unit that otherwise would have had to be available inside a project area. TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY CCRL Section 33413(c) requires that replacement and inclusionary units shall remain available at affordable housing cost to the income levels indicated for the longest feasible time, which includes but is not limited to unlimited duration and is no shorter than the effectiveness of the land use controls in the Redevelopment Plan.6 4 As defined in Health and Safety Code Sections 50052.5 and 50053. 5 This legislation, as currently written, will expire January 2001 unless re- enacted. 5 CCRL Section 33334.3(1) states that when new or substantially rehabilitated housing units are developed or assisted with money from an agency's 20 percent affordable housing set-aside fund, the agency shall require that those housing units remain affordable for the longest feasible time, but for not less than 15 years for rental units or 10 years for owner - occupied units. Please note that while Agency expenditures pursuant to CCRL Section 33334.3(f) are appropriately expended from the LMl fund, they do not provide the Agency with any "replacement" or "inclusionary" credits. 15 _ e 8 ® 9 DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING Most governmental programs define housing as affordable when the household is paying no more than 30 percent of household income for housing. In addition, a median income based on household size, is assessed for each county within the state. Since governmental programs are intended to provide affordable housing for specific income groups, target groups of very low (50 percent of County median income), low (80 percent of County median income) and moderate (120 percent of County median income) are also calculated. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PLAN REQUIREMENT CCRL Section 33413(b)(4), requires each redevelopment agency to adopt a compliance plan to be included as part of the implementation plan required by Section 33490, indicating how the agency will comply with the requirements of the inclusionary rule; the compliance plan must be consistent with the Housing Element of the City's General Plan. The compliance plan shall be reviewed and amended at least every five years, in conjunction with either the Housing Element cycle or the plan implementation cycle. The compliance plan must ensure that the requirements of 33413(b) are met every ten years. CCRL Section 33490(a)(2)(B) requires that for each project area to which subdivision (b) of Section 33413 applies, the Section addressing the agency- developed and project area housing shall contain: W Estimates of the number of new, substantially rehabilitated or price- restricted residential units to be developed or purchased within one or more project areas, both over the Life -of -the -plan and during the next ten years. (ii) Estimates of the number of units of very low -, low -, and moderate- income households required to be developed within one or more project areas in order to meet the requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 33413, both over the Life -of -the -plan and during the next ten years. (iii) The number of units of very low -, low -, and moderate - income households which have been developed within one or more project areas which meet the requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 33413. (iv) Estimates of the number of agency developed residential units which will be developed during the next five years, if any, which will be governed by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 33413. (v) Estimates of the number of agency developed units for very low -, low -, and moderate- income households which will be developed by the agency during the next five years to meet the requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 33413. iR CCRL Section 33334.4 provides that over the duration of the redevelopment plan, the LMI Fund.shall be used to assist housing for persons of low- and very low - income in at least the same proportion as the total number of housing units needed for those income groups which are not being provided by other governmental programs bears to the total number of units needed for persons of moderate -, low- and very low- income within the community. USE OF FUND MONIES OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA CCRL Section 33334.2(g) makes provision for redevelopment agencies to use funds from their LMI Fund outside of a redevelopment project area if the redevelopment agency and the city council find that use of these funds outside the project area will be of benefit to the project. The Agency and City Council have adopted the prerequisite resolutions that enable the Agency to use its LMI Fund monies outside of the Project Areas. However, CCRL Section 33413(b)(2)(A)(ii) provides that dwelling units developed by the Agency outside a project area by agreement or regulation which are to be credited towards inclusionary requirements require two such units for each unit that otherwise would have had to be available inside a project area. 22. SECTION 33413(b)(4) COMPLIANCE PLAN Section 33334.2 of the CCRL requires that 20 percent of all tax increment generated from 'within the Project Area be deposited into the LMI Fund. The Agency has regularly made the required contribution into the LMI Fund. As stated earlier, the purpose of theLMl Fund is to increase, improve and preserve the community's supply of very-low, low- andmoderate income housing available at affordable housing cost. 1999 -2004 AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOAL AND OBJECTIVES The Agency's s housin 9 goal and objectives for the term of this Implementation on Plan are set forth below. Please note that Goals I and II, the non- housing goals, are set forth above on pages 7 and 8 of this Implementation Plan. GOAL NO. III INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF VERY LOW -, LOW- AND MODERATE- INCOME HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, BOTH FOR OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL MARKETS OBJECTIVES: 111.1 Promote and participate in public/private partnerships with non -profit and for profit developers and /or property owners to rehabilitate existing rental units for very-low and low- income households. 111.2 Develop and implement owner - occupied, revolving loan program(s) for low- and moderate- income households. 111.3 Increase the number of senior rentals at all income levels. 17 111.4 Work with property owners and the development community to identify in fill parcels and to develop housing units for very low -, low -, and moderate - income households. 111.5. Work with the City to require new developments outside of the Project Area to assist the Agency in meeting the Goal by contributing financing and /or inclusionary units intended for low- and moderate - income households. LOW- AND MODERATE- INCOME HOUSING FUND Section 33490(a)(2)(A)(i) of the CCRL requires that each agency show the amount of money available in the LMI Fund and the estimated amounts which will be deposited in the LMI Fund during each of the next five years. Estimated tax increment deposits are equal to 20 percent of the projected gross tax increment for the Project Area, based on a two percent estimated annual increase in assessed valuations. Section 33490(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the CCRL requires that an agency provide, in addition to the estimate of the number of new, rehabilitated, or price restricted units to be assisted, an estimate of the expenditures of monies from the LMI Fund during each of the five years. Table 7 is included herein for the purpose of providing the required analysis. Table 7 shows the Agency beginning the 1999 -2004 planning period with a LMI Fund balance of $1,2273,206 During fiscal year 1999 -00, the Agency will allocate $450,000 for LMI programs and projects and $81,645 for Agency administration costs. Additionally, throughout the 5 -year period covered by this Implementation Plan, the Agency has allocated approximately $155,000 per year for debt service payments from the LMI Fund. Agency projected expenditures during FY 2000 -01 through FY 2003 -04 for programs and projects equal approximately $1,000,000 per year. The Agency estimates a fiscal year 2003 -04 ending LMI Fund balance of slightly over $960,000. The Agency's expenditures on affordable housing programs will meet or exceed the 20 percent requirement established by CCRL Section 33334.2. PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS Based upon the affordable housing Goal and Objectives outlined above, and the available funds over the term of this Implementation Plan as shown in Table 7, the Agency has identified the following projects that it plans to initiate or continue over the next five fiscal years. It should be noted that many projects a redevelopment agency engages in are dependent upon private market involvement and, as such, their initiation and completion are not wholly controlled by the Agency. Furthermore, many of the below listed programs depend upon private home owners' willingness to assume additional debt, albeit "soft" debt, or willingness to encumber the resale of their homes pursuant to covenants required by the Agency. Each program or project outlined below implements the Agency's affordable housing goal (Goal III) and one or more of its affordable housing Objectives (Objectives 111.1 through 111.4). 18 Fiscal Year FUND ACTIVITY 450,000 199-00 2000 -01 2001 - 0200203 $5,050,000 2003 04 ;TOTAL'' Yearly Beginning Balances 84,943 $1,273,2062 $1,021,244 $935,209 $952,507 $1,679,652 153,521 Es #im;�lted2ece�pfs $770,980 A. Tax Increment 372,200 488,393 603,528 $722,117 759,827 $2,946,065 B. Interest Income 62,883 62,785 52,234 $45,599 68,206 $291,707 C. Proceeds of Land Sale 500,0003 500,0003 500,0003 $1,500,000 D. Other $300,0004 $900,0005 $1,200,000 A. LMI Programs & Projects 450,000 900,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,300,000 $5,050,000 B. Administration 81,645 83,278 84,943 86,642 88,375 $424,883 C. Bond Debt Service 155,400 153,935 153,521 153,929 154,155 $770,980 1 Complies with CCRL Section 33490(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii). 2 Beginning fund balance from RDA June 30, 1999 financial statements and 1998 -99 Annual Statement. This amount represents the total fund balance of $2,913,490 less advances for rehabilitation loans in the amount of $140,284, and land held for sale ($1,500,000). 3 Gisler land sales. 4 From Far West Homes that will be developed in FY 2001 -02. 5 See footnote 12 in Table 17 on page 33. 19 List of Programs and Projects 1. Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program: This program provides home improvement loans within the Project Area. The most common repair has been re- roofing, followed by exterior painting and plumbing repairs. Loans can be up to $20,000 and are available to very low- and low- income persons and families. Loans in the very low- income category are at 0 percent interest with the principal amount due on sale or change in ownership. Loans in the low- income category are at 3 percent and are amortized over 10 years.' The Agency has projected annual costs for this program to equal approximately $300,000 per year. 2. Mobile home Rehabilitation Loan Program: In October, 1998 the Agency established its mobile home rehabilitation loan program which is similar to the housing rehabilitation program except that the loan limit is $6,500 with the possibility of an increase to $9,750 for special circumstances. Loans in the very low- income category are for 0 percent interest with a 10 -year call, those in the low- income category are for 3 percent interest amortized over 7 years. Commencing in FY 2000 -01 and annually thereafter, the Agency projects expending $150,000 per year on this program. 3. First Time Homebuyer Program: The Agency is proposing to initiate a First Time Homebuyer Program in FY 2001 -02 and is anticipating assisting 7 units per year thereafter. The Agency has projected a need for approximately $140,000 per year for this program. 4. New Construction: As shown in Table 17 on page 33, the Agency is projecting that it will cause the income restriction of 112 new units over the term of this Implementation Plan commencing in FY 2000 -01. The Agency and City anticipate receiving $300,000 from the Far West Homes development in FY 2001.02 and $900,000 from the Pacific Communities Costa Bella development in approximately FY 2002 -03. The Agency intends to use the balance of its LMI Fund funds reserved for other affordable housing programs and projects (commencing in FY 2000 -01 and including the $300,000 and $900,000 projected to be received in FY 2001 -02 and FY 2002 -03) to assist developers in financing the restrictive covenants necessary to assure that the 112 units are income restricted in a manner sufficient for the Agency to secure appropriate "inclusionary" credits. 7 Housing rehabilitation loans for structures outside the Project Area are made with City funds through the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund. 20 -, •' :' E *„ (G ,. f 3,„ �✓. $.` ` „ L'._','" -'y f:.'�G' '1. S °w .1.�':. 3Y ��"2 z F �'.w.:. k 1 ! Won PHYSICAL CONDITIONS SUMMARY ECONOMIC CONDITIONS SUMMARY INFRASTRUCTURE ABNORMAL PROGRAMS & UNSAFE UNECONOMIC ;USE OF INCOMPATIBLE LAND IRREGULARLY SHAPEID DEPRECIATED OR PRESENCE OF HAZARDOUS BUSINESS CONDITIONS, INADEQUATE EXPENDITURES= BUILDINGS BUILDINGS/LOTS USES INADEQUATELY SIZED STAGNANT PROPERTY SUBSTANCES ABANDONED SLOGS, PUBLIC PARCELS VALUES EXCESSIVE VACANT IMPROVEMENTS LOTS Housing Administration Rental Rehabilitation Mobile home Rehabilitation First -Time Homebuyer New Construction (including senior complex) 1 Complies with CCRL Section 33490(a)(1)(A). 21 NEXUS BETWEEN EXPENDITURE FOR HOUSING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS AND BLIGHT ELIMINATION CCRL Section 33490(a)(1)(A) requires that the implementation plan prepared by each agency provide an explanation of how the programs and expenditures outlined above for affordable housing programs will eliminate blight within the Project Area. Table 8 on the proceding page shows this relationship. Please note that Table 6 above provides this same information for non - housing projects and programs. CURRENT STATUS OF AGENCY AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLIANCE (1995 -1999) The information presented on Tables 9 through 13 represents analysis of the Agency's compliance with CCRL affordable housing mandates during the time period covered under the Initial Implementation Plan (FY 1995 -96 through FY 1998 -99). Agency accomplishments prior to FY 1995 -96 were described in the Initial Implementation Plan and the Initial Update. Table 9: As shown in Table 9, the Agency did not destroy or remove any affordable units from the Project Area. Therefore, the Agency has no "replacement" rule obligation. Table 10: As shown in Table 10, to date the Agency has not directly developed or substantially rehabilitated any units inside the Project Area. Table 11: As shown in Table 11, to date the Agency has not directly developed or substantially rehabilitated any units outside the Project Area. Table 12: As shown in Table 12, during and before the 1994 -1999 planning period, only 15 units were developed or substantially rehabilitated within the Project Area by others than the Agency, with or without Agency assistance. None of these units were income restricted pursuant to Section CCRL 33413. Table 12 also shows very little residential development activity in the Project Area up to the present, resulting in a moderate "inclusionary" deficit of one (1) very low- income unit and two (2) low- and moderate- income units at the beginning of this Implementation Plan's planning period. Table 13: Table 13 shows the total number of Agency- assisted units which both can be counted toward the Agency's "inclusionary" requirements (Columns 1 through 3) and those which cannot (Columns 4 through 8). Although the Agency has assisted 28 housing units during the term of the Initial Implementation Plan, none of these units carried restrictive income covenants of a time period sufficient for them to qualify for the Agency's inclusionary deficit of one very low- and two low- income units. 22 9 10 11 12 NO. OF UNITS DESTROYED NO. OF UNITS REHABILITATED, OR REMOVED AFFECTING DESTRUCTION/ DEVELOPED, OR CONSTRUCTEW-10,11 REMOVAL FISCAL VERY LOW LOW LOW -MOD ;' SUBJECT TO VERY LOW LOW LOW -MOD YEAR INCOME' INCOME' INCOME' (a,b)° INCOME INCOME INCOME 1994 -95 1995 -96 1996 -97 1997 -98 1998 -99 NO ACTIVITY Complies with CCRL Section 33413(a), (c), (d)(1), and 33334.5. The Agency shall require that the aggregate number of replacement units remain available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of low -, moderate -, and very low- income households for the longest feasible time, as determined by the Agency, except as provided for in CCRL Section 33413(c)(1)(2). Balance forward from Project Area adoption. As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50105 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50079.5 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50093 From low- or moderate- income housing market, as part of a redevelopment project. If units planned for destruction or removal, locations for suitable replacement units must be identified. Replacement units must be provided within four years of removal or destruction. a. Written agreement with Agency. b. Financial assistance provided by Agency. Within territorial jurisdiction of Agency; must be an equal number of replacement units as those destroyed or removed provided within four years of removal. When units are destroyed, or removed after 9/1/89, 75% of the replacement units shall replace dwelling units available at affordable housing cost in the same level of very low- income households, lower- income households, and persons and families of low- and moderate - income, as the persons displaced from those displaced units. Reference CCRL Section 33413(c) for applicable covenants. Must be an equal or greater number of bedrooms as those removed or destroyed. 23 e C � 4 1994 -95 1995 -96 1996 -97 1997 -98 NO ACTIVITY 0 1998 -99 Compliance with Sections 33413(b)(1) & (c), 33490(a)(2)(A)(ii) & 33413(d)(1). The Agency shall require that the aggregate number of inclusionary units remain available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of low -, moderate, and very low- income households for the longest feasible time, as determined by the Agency, except as provided for in CCRL Section 33413(c)(1)(2). New and/or substantially rehabilitated units may be aggregated in one or more Project Areas, subsequent to findings pursuant to CCRL Section 33413(b)(2)(A)(v). The Agency may cause, by agreement or regulation, to be available, at affordable housing costs, to persons and families of low -, moderate- or very low- income households, two units outside the Project Area for each unit that otherwise would have had to be available inside the Project Area. If this provision is applicable inclusionary credit must be calculated accordingly in the % of units made available at affordable income levels. Balance forward from Project Area adoption. Substantial Rehabilitation means rehabilitation, the value of which constitutes 25% of the after rehabilitation value of the dwelling, inclusive of the land. Inclusionary obligation only arises when multi- family rental units with 3 or more units are substantially rehabilitated, or when single family units with 1 or 2 units are substantially rehabilitated using Agency assistance. As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50105. As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50079.5. Low - Moderate as defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50093. Calculated on a cumulative year -to -year basis. See Table 7 for projection of LMI Fund expenditures (CCRL Sections 33413(b)(1) and (2) and 33334.2 and /or 33334.6). 24 UNITS MADE AVAILABLE AT CUMULATIVE PROJECT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST' AREA STATUS DEFICIT SURPLUS DIFFERENCE" 1 2 3 VERY LOW` LOW - MODERATES (IF ANY) (IF ANY) (DEFICIT [-])/(SURPLUS ( +)) NEW SUBSTANTWLREHABS';'' �kydkiw' ^ ^; REQUIRED TO REQUIRED M FISCAL CONSTRUC -f BE 15% OF -` TO BE 15% OF YEAR TION MULTI - FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY COLUMN 3 COLUMN 3 VERY LOW LOW-MOD VERY LOW LOW -MOD VERY LOW LOW-MOD 1994 -95 1995 -96 1996 -97 1997 -98 NO ACTIVITY 0 1998 -99 Compliance with Sections 33413(b)(1) & (c), 33490(a)(2)(A)(ii) & 33413(d)(1). The Agency shall require that the aggregate number of inclusionary units remain available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of low -, moderate, and very low- income households for the longest feasible time, as determined by the Agency, except as provided for in CCRL Section 33413(c)(1)(2). New and/or substantially rehabilitated units may be aggregated in one or more Project Areas, subsequent to findings pursuant to CCRL Section 33413(b)(2)(A)(v). The Agency may cause, by agreement or regulation, to be available, at affordable housing costs, to persons and families of low -, moderate- or very low- income households, two units outside the Project Area for each unit that otherwise would have had to be available inside the Project Area. If this provision is applicable inclusionary credit must be calculated accordingly in the % of units made available at affordable income levels. Balance forward from Project Area adoption. Substantial Rehabilitation means rehabilitation, the value of which constitutes 25% of the after rehabilitation value of the dwelling, inclusive of the land. Inclusionary obligation only arises when multi- family rental units with 3 or more units are substantially rehabilitated, or when single family units with 1 or 2 units are substantially rehabilitated using Agency assistance. As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50105. As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50079.5. Low - Moderate as defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50093. Calculated on a cumulative year -to -year basis. See Table 7 for projection of LMI Fund expenditures (CCRL Sections 33413(b)(1) and (2) and 33334.2 and /or 33334.6). 24 5 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 11 UNITS MADE AVAILABLE AT AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST1 1 2 3 1 VERY LOW4 SUBSTANTIAL REHAB3 REQUIRED NEW TO BE 15% FISCAL CONSTRUC- MULTI - SINGLE OF YEAR TION FAMILY I FAMILY 10 COLUMN 3 LOW MODERATE5 REQUIRED TO BE 15% OF COLUMN 3 1994 -95 1995 -96 1996 -97 1997 -98 NO ACTIVITY 1998 -99 CUMULATIVE PROJECT AREA STATUS DIFFERENCE6,7 DEFICIT (IF ANY) SURPLUS (IF ANY) (DEFICIT +/(_) SURPLUS) VERY LOW I LOW -MOD I VERY LOW I LOW -MOD II VERY LOW I LOW -MOD Compliance with Sections 33413(b)(1) & (c), 33490(a)(2)(A)(ii) & 33413(d)(1). The Agency shall require that the aggregate number of inclusionary units remain available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of low -, moderate -, and very low- income households for the longest feasible time, as determined by the Agency, except as provided for in CCRL Section 33413(c)(1)(2). Agency must have made findings pursuant to CCRL Section 33334.2(8) to develop units outside Project Area. New and/or substantially rehabilitated units may be aggregated in one or more Project Areas, subsequent to findings pursuant to CCRL Section 33413(b)(2)(A)(v). The Agency may cause, by agreement or regulation, to be available, at affordable housing costs, to persons and families of low -, moderate- or very low- income households, two units outside the Project Area for each unit that otherwise would have had to be available inside the Project Area. If this provision is applicable inclusionary credit must be calculated accordingly in the % of units made available at affordable income levels. Balance forward from Project Area adoption. Substantial Rehabilitation means rehabilitation, the value of which constitutes 25% of the after rehabilitation value of the dwelling, inclusive of the land. Inclusionary obligation only arises when multi - family rental units with 3 or more units are substantially rehabilitated, or when single family units with 1 or 2 units are substantially rehabilitated using Agency assistance. As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50105. As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50079.5. Low - Moderate as defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50093. Calculated on a cumulative year -to -year basis. See Table 16 for projection of LMI Fund expenditures (CCRL Secfions 33413(b)(1) and (2) and 33334.2 and /or 33334.6). 25 UNITS DEVELOPED BY OTHERS 1 2 NEW SUBSTANTIAL REHAB' FISCAL CONSTRUC- YEAR TION MULTI- FAMILY I SINGLE FAMILY 3 NON - AGENCY DEVELOPED UNITS MADE AVAILABLE AT AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST° VERY LOW' I LOW'- MODERATE' CUMULATIVE' PROJECT AREA STATUS "k ANNUAL DEFICIT ANNUAL SURPLUS DIFFERENCE" tEQUIRED TO a-1 (REQUIRED TO (IF ANY) (IF ANY) (DEFICIT [+ /(SURPLUS [ +]) BE 6% OF BE 9% OF ?' COLUMN 3) N COLUMN 3) VERY LOW I LOW -MOD VERY LOW I LOW -MOD VERY LOW I LOW -MOD 4 1994-951 110 110 0.12 0.18 ` 0.12 0.18 -1 -2 1995 -96 011 1 2 0.06 0 09� 0.06 0.09 -1 -2 s _. -1 -2 1 996 -97 p11 0 0 r r, 1997 -98 011 211 0.18 N , 1 0.12 0.18 -1 -2 s . 0.18 0.27 -1 -2 1998 -99 011 11 3� _ , 0.18 1 0.27 1 Complies with CCRL Section 33413(b)(2) & (c) & (d)(1). The Agency shall require that the aggregate number of replacement units remain available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of low -, moderate -, and very low - income households for the longest feasible time, as determined by the Agency, except as provided for in CCRL Section 33413(c)(1)(2). Data compiled and analyzed by Urban Futures, Inc., in conjunction with City/Agency staff. 2 Balance forward from Project Area adoption. 3 "Substantial Rehabilitation" means rehabilitation, the value of which constitutes 25% of the after rehabilitation value of the unit, inclusive of the land value. Inclusionary obligation only arises when multi- family rental units with 3 or more units are substantially rehabilitated, or when single family units with 1 or 2 units are substantially rehabilitated using Agency assistance. 4 As defined" by Health & Safety Code Section 50105 5 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50079.5 6 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50093 7 The Agency may cause, by agreement or regulation, to be available, at affordable housing costs, to persons of low -, moderate- or very low - income households, two units outside the Project Area for each unit that otherwise would have had to be available inside the Project Area. 8 Calculated on a cumulative year -to -year basis. 9 See Table 7 for projection of LMI Funding expenditures (CCRL Sections 33413(b)(1) and (2) and 33334.2 and/or 33334.6). 10 Source: Table 11, Initial Update 11 Source: Agency document providing information for housing production within and outside the Project Area for FY 1999 -98 through FY 1999 -00. 12• Source: Table 12, Initial Update 26 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' PRICE PRICE PRICE INCLUSIONARY FISCAL RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED NEW SUBSTANTIAL BOND UNITS AVAILABLE YEAR (NEW CONST)2 (SUB REHAB) (EXISTING) REHABED3 CONSTRUCTION REHABILITATION FINANCED OTHER [ +) [-1 Mkf w - 1994 -95 1995 -96 108 " 1996 -97 86 1997 -98 57� 1998 -99 38 �1510-11 Maw 1 Compliance with CCRL Sections 33334.2(a), 33490(a)(2)(A). Includes Agency assisted units insideloutside Project Area; see footnote No. 4. 2 Pursuant to CCRL Sections 33413(b)(2)(B) and (C). 3 Does not include units that are defined as substantially rehabilitated, pursuant to CCRL Sections 33413(b)(2)(A)(iii) and (iv). 4 Agency must have made findings pursuant to CCRL Section 33334.2(8). 5 Units included in columns 1, 2 and 3 count for inalusionary credits, pursuant to CCRL Section 33413(b)(1) and (2). See 9 and 10 series tables. Units included in columns 4 through 8 do not qualify for inclusionary credit. 6 Source: Initial Update. 7 Source: Agency document entitled "Action Housing Program Results" for four (4) units and Agency document providing information for housing production both within and outside the Project Area for FY 1997 -98 through 1999 -00 for one (1) unit. 8 Source: Agency document providing information for housing production both within and outside the Project Area for FY 1997 -98 through 1999 -00 27 PROJECTED HOUSING UNITS ANALYSIS Tables 14 through 18 present an analysis of the Agency's housing assistance activities projected to occur within the 1999 -2004 planning period using the programs and methods of assistance described in the other sections of this Implementation Plan. The information contained in these tables, in concert with the other parts of this Implementation Plan, ensure compliance with CCRL Sections 33490, 33413, 33334.2 and /or 33334.6, 33334.3 and 33334.4. The tables represent what is required by law regarding affordability, replacement and inclusionary requirements established in the CCRL and discussed at the beginning of this section of the Implementation Plan. Table 14: Table 14 shows that no (0) units within the Project Area are proposed to be destroyed or removed from the affordable housing market by the Agency during the time period covered by this Implementation Plan. Therefore, the Agency is projected to have no "replacement" requirements over the term of this Implementation Plan. Table 15: This table shows that no (0) units are being proposed for development or substantial rehabilitation directly by the Agency inside the Project Area during the 1999 -2004 planning period. Table 16: Table 16 shows that no (0) units are proposed to be developed or substantially rehabilitated outside the Project Area directly by the Agency during the time period covered by this Implementation Plan. Table 17: Table 17 provides an analysis of all units projected to be constructed or substantial rehabilitated within the Project Area either with or without assistance from the Agency. Please refer to Table 12 for an accounting of information provided in the "Balance forward" row. Agency staff estimates that there is sufficient market demand, and available, residentially -zoned land, to accommodate the development of 705 new residential units in the Project Area over the term of the Implementation Plan. The bulk of these units, some 638 units, are projected to be constructed in FY 2001 -02 and FY 2002 -03 with the development of three projects: the Far West Condominiums, Pacific. Communities single family residences, and the Archstone Communities. As further described in Footnotes 11, 12 and 13 on Table 17, all three of these developments will contain some number of income- restricted units. As shown in the Table, the Agency has projected that fully 107 units (15 percent) of these 700 new units will be income restricted. Thirty -four of these units will be restricted to persons and families of very low income and 78 will be income restricted to persons and families of low income. At the end of the planning period for this Implementation Plan, the Agency has projected that it will have a deficit of 10 very low - income units and a surplus of 13 low- and moderate- income units. The Agency will need to make every effort to reduce the inclusionary deficit in the very low- income category over the term of the third Implementation Plan. 28 Table 18: This Table summarizes all Agency assistance projected to be provided during the term of this Implementation Plan. Columns 1 through 3 provide information on units which the Agency assists and requires restrictive agreements which allow the Agency to count them toward its'Inclusionary" requirements. The Agency is projecting to provide 112 such units. It is anticipated that the Agency's assistance to developers for new construction of housing tracts identified in Footnotes 11, 12 and 13 on Table 12 will provide these units. Columns 4 through 8 provide information on units which the Agency assists but which it cannot count toward its inclusionary requirements because the restrictions are not of sufficient duration. It is anticipated that the Agency's housing and mobile home rehabilitation programs will provide these units. Based upon the information presented in Tables 14 through 18 above, the Agency is projected to have no inclusionary deficit for low -, and moderate- income units by FY 2003 -04. The Agency is projected to have a 10 unit deficit in the very low - income category (see "Totals" in Table 17). 29 NO. OF UNITS TO BE DESTROYED OR REMOVED AFFECTING' LOW - VERY MOD FISCAL LOW LOW INCOME YEAR INCOME' INCOME' ° I 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002-03 2003-04 NO. OF UNITS TO BE REHABED, DEVELOPED, OR CONSTRUCTED' TION/ 2EMOVAL SUBJECT TO VERY LOW LOW LOW -MOD (a, b)° INCOME INCOME INCOME NONE PROPOSED f PROJECT AREA STATUS DEFICITfO ' SURPLUS (IF ANY) (IF ANY) UNITS BEDROOMS UNITS I BEDROOMS 1 Complies with CCRL Section 33413(a) & (c), 33490(a)(3). The Agency shall require that the aggregate number of replacement units remain available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of low -, moderate -, and very low- income households for the longest feasible time, as determined by the Agency, except as provided for in CCRL Section 33413(c)(1)(2). 2 From low- or moderate - income housing market, as part of a redevelopment project. If units planned for destruction or removal, locations for suitable replacement units must be identified. 3 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50105 4 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50079.5 5 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50093 8 a. Written Agreement with Agency. b. Financial Assistance Provided by Agency. 7 Within territorial jurisdiction of Agency; must be an equal number of replacement units as those displaced. 8 Replacement units must be provided within four years of displacement. 9 Must be an equal or greater number of bedrooms as those removed or destroyed. 10 When units are displaced after 9/1/89, 75% of the replacement units shall replace dwelling units available at affordable housing cost in the same level of very low- income households, lower- income households, and persons and families of low- and moderate - income, as the persons displaced from those displaced units. 11 Reference CCRL Section 33413(c) for applicable covenants. c TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 1 2 SUBSTANTIAL REHAB' FISCAL NEW MULTI SINGLE YEAR CONSTRUCTION FAMILY I FAMILY 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 3 1 UNITS MADE AVAILABLE AT AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST' VERY .3 LOW'- MODERATE° REQUIRED REQUIRED TO TO BE BE 15% OF 15% OF COLUMN COLUMN3 NON PROPOSED CUMULATIVE PROJECT AREA STATUS DEFICIT SURPLUS DIFFERENCE"' (IF ANY) (IF ANY) (DEFICIT [-))/(SURPLUS [ +1) VERY LOW j LOW -MOD j VERY LOW I LOW -MOD II VERY LOW I LOW -MOD 1 Compliance with Sections 33413(b)(1) & (c), 33490(a)(2)(A)(ii) & 33413(d)(1). The Agency shall require that the aggregate number of inclusionary units remain available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of low -, moderate -, and very low- income households for the longest feasible time, as determined by the Agency, except as provided for in CCRL Section 33413(c)(1)(2). 2 "Substantial Rehabilitation" means rehabilitation, the value of which constitutes 25% of the after rehabilitation value of the dwelling, inclusive of the land. Inclusionary obligation only arises when multi- family rental units with 3 or more units are substantially rehabilitated, or when single family units with 1 or 2 units are substantially rehabilitated using Agency assistance. 3 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50105 4 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50079.5 5 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50093 6 Calculated on a cumulative year -to -year basis. 7 See Table 7 for projection of LMI Fund expenditures (CCRL Sections 33413(b)(1) and (2) and 33334.2 and /or 33334.6). 31 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 1 2 3 SUBSTANTIAL REHAB' NEW FISCAL CONSTRUC- MULTI- SINGLE. YEAR TION FAMILY I FAMILY 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001 -02 2002 -03 2003 -04 UNITS MADE AVAILABLE AT AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST' VERY LOW' LOW' MODERATE' REQUIRED REQUIRED TO BE TO BE 15% OF 15% OF COLUMN . COLUMN NON PROPOSED CUMULATIVE PROJECT AREA STATUS DEFICIT SURPLUS DIFFERENCE" (IF ANY) (IF ANY) (DEFICIT [- ])/(SURPLUS ( +j) VERY LOW ( LOW -MOD I VERY LOW I LOW -MOD 11 VERY LOW I LOW -MOD 1 Compliance with Sections 33413(b)(1) & (c), 33490(a)(2)(A)(ii) & 33413(d)(1). The Agency shall require that the aggregate number of inclusionary units remain available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of low -, moderate -, and very low - income households for the longest feasible time, as determined by the Agency, except as provided for in CCRL Section 33413(c)(1)(2). 2 "Substantial Rehabilitation" means rehabilitation, the value of which constitutes 25 % of the after rehabilitation value of the dwelling, inclusive of the land. Inclusionary obligation only arises when multi - family rental units with 3 or more units are substantially rehabilitated, or when single family units with 1 or 2 units are substantially rehabilitated using Agency assistance. 3 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50105 4 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50079.5 5 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50093 6 Calculated on a cumulative year - to-year basis. 7 See Table 7 for projection of LMI Fund expenditures (CCRL Sections 33413(b)(1) and (2) and 33334.2 and/or 33334.6). 32 1 UNITS REQUIRED TO BE AVAILABLE AT AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST MONITORING NO: OF UNITS DEVELOPED BY OTHERS VERY LOW LOW - MODERATE` r A x w 1 2 3 u SUBSTANTIAL REHAB' Wz '� ANNUAL DEFICIT ANNUAL SURPLUS DIFFERENCE" w' ,E1f�'�= (REQUIRED � r a (REQUIRED (IF ANY) (IF ANY) (DEFICIT [- ]y(SURPI:US[ +]) NEW _, TO 5 TO FISCAL CONSTRUC MULTI- SINGLE BE 6% OF BE 9% OF YEAR -TION FAMILY FAMILY COLUMN 3) COLUMN 3) VERY LOW LOW -MOD VERY LOW LOW -MOD VERY LOW LOW -MOD 1999 -00 0 0 -1 -2 2000 -01 679,10 0 4.02 6.03 0.02 5.97 -1 +4 2001 -02 32611.72 0 19.56 29.34 19.56 .34 -20 +4 2002 -03 31279 0 18.72 28.08 '' ' 6.28 8.92 -14 +13 y 2003 -04 0 0 -14 +13 c ..;�' F.,, ,}a' •r;r .. ,,, >:s - ¢ �r:: s £ :� e a�; F ,flay. � �, ^s.. m � a � � �, ���,""�''.„ ;,x�., •r•/��„.„..,: v ;fit ria � --rr� � 1 Complies with CCRL Section 33413(b)(2) & (c) & (d)(1). The Agency shall require that the aggregate number of replacement units remain available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of low -, moderate -, and very low- income households for the longest feasible time, as determined by the Agency, except as provided for in CCRL Section 33413(c)(1)(2). 2 "Substantial Rehabilitation" means rehabilitation, the value of which constitutes 25% of the after rehabilitation value of the unit, inclusive of the land value. inclusionary obligation only arises when multi- family rental units with 3 or more units are substantially rehabilitated, or when single family units with 1 or 2 units are substantially rehabilitated using Agency assistance. 3 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50105 4 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50079.5 5 As defined by Health & Safety Code Section 50093 6 The Agency may cause, by agreement or regulation, to be available, at affordable housing costs, to persons of low -, moderate- or very low- income households, two units outside the Project Area for each unit that otherwise would have had to be available inside the Project Area. 7 Calculated on a cumulative year - to-year basis. 8 See Table 7 for projection of LMI Fund expenditures (CCRL Sections 33413(b)(1) and (2) and 33334.2 and /or 33334.8). 9 Per Agency staff, Mountain View (Gisler Field),59 units: a single family detached development, will be completed with 4 units restricted to the very low - income category and 11 units restricted to low - and moderate - income persons and families. 10 Per Agency staff, Tract 5181, 8 units: a single family detached development with one (1) low income unit. 11 Per Agency staff, Far West Condominium development, 79 units with 7 low income units and an additional $300,000 in lieu of the very low housing requirement. 12 Per Agency staff, Pacific Communities Corte Bello development, 247 single family, detached units with 22 low income units. Additionally, approximately $900,000 will be made available to construct other affordable units. 13 Per Agency staff, Archstone Communities, 312 multi - family units, with 25 very low- income units and 37 low income units. 33 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8� PRICE INCLUSIONARY RESTRICTED PRICE PRICE UNITS (NEW RESTRICTED RESTRICTED NEW CON- SUBSTANTIAL FIRST TIME -µms AVAILABLE FISCAL YEAR CON$T)2 (SUB REHAB) (EXISTING) REHABED3 STRUCTION REHAB HOMEBUYER OTHER r , 26 3 1999 -00 x 2000 -01 16 3 77 16 2001 -02 34 4 5 �:r r 34 62 62 2002 -03 62 4 5 2003-04 2003 -04 4 5 >, } -. y i.,V iGyj : X k '�� fW ".., p ,, -- 3.e,,,.�:',. 1'.%v,. 'r ��xna �' �0 „ ..* a .§-,;i /�' a - ,r ,✓'s 3 , t �. .�; -z ..fir ,/,, "r`F' 1 Compliance with Sections 33334.2(a), 33490(a)(2)(A). Includes Agency assisted units inside /outside the Project Area; see footnote No. 3. 2 Pursuant to CCRL Sections 33413(b)(2)(B) and (C). 3 Does not include units that are defined as substantially rehabilitated, pursuant to CCRL Sections 33413(b)(2)(A)(iil) and (iv). Agency will not receive inclusionary housing credits. However, these rehabilitated units may have to be price - restricted pursuant to CCRL Sections 33334.3(0(1)(A) and (B). 4 Agency must have made findings pursuant to CCRL Section 33334.2(8). 5 Units included in columns 1, 2 and 3 count for inclusionary credits, pursuant to CCRL Section 33413(b)(1) and (2). Units included in columns 4 through 8 do not qualify for inclusionary credit. 6 Balance forward from Table 13. 7 Rental subsidy program for only FY 2000 -01. 34 n a A EXCESS SURPLUS An excess surplus exists when the unexpended and unencumbered amount in an agency's LMI Fund exceeds the greater of $1 million or the total amount deposited in an agency'sLMI Fund during the preceding four years. The first date that an excess surplus could have existed was July 1, 1994. Table 7 shows that the Agency will start the 1999 -2004 planning period with an estimated $1,273,206 in its LMI Fund. The Agency is allowed to adjust the unencumbered LMI Fund balance by subtracting any bond proceeds remaining in theLMI Fund. As a result of this adjustment, the Agency does not currently have an excess surplus. Based upon LMI Fund expenditure projections for the five-year planning period, the Agency will not be affected by an excess surplus situation during this time period. FAIR SHARE HOUSING ALLOCATION In 1980 Assembly Bill 2853 was adopted requiring all councils of governments to develop regional allocations of housing needs for all income categories (fair share of housing) based on regional housing needs The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has determined the housing needs for the City of Moorpark. Table 19 identifies the City's estimated 1998 -2005 housing need by income. This data reaffirms the need for the Agency to assist in the provision of very low -, low -, and moderate- income housing and the nexus to CCRL Section 33334.4. CCRL Section 33334.4 describes the nexus between City and Agency fair share housing requirements by requiring each Agency to expend, over the duration of its redevelopment plans, the monies in the LMI Fund to assist housing for persons of very low- and low- income in at least the same proportion as the total number of housing units needed for those income groups which are not being provided by other governmental programs bears to the total number of units needed for persons of very low -, low- and moderate- income within the community. 35 1998 -2005 NO. OF % OF INCOME GROUP UNITS TOTAL Very low (0 - 50% County Median Income) 253 21.4% Other lower (50 - 80% County Median Income) 146 12.4% Moderate (80 - 120 % County Median Income) 360 30.5 % Above Moderate (over 120% County Median Income) 422 35.7% TOTAL UNITS 1182 100% Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Housing Needs Assessment Calculator (www.scag.ca.gov). Please note that these numbers are subject to change before final SCAG action. CCRL Section 33334.4 describes the nexus between City and Agency fair share housing requirements by requiring each Agency to expend, over the duration of its redevelopment plans, the monies in the LMI Fund to assist housing for persons of very low- and low- income in at least the same proportion as the total number of housing units needed for those income groups which are not being provided by other governmental programs bears to the total number of units needed for persons of very low -, low- and moderate- income within the community. 35 TEN -YEAR AND LIFE -OF- THE -PLAN HOUSING REQUIREMENTS Section 33490(a)(2)(B) of the CCRL requires that: (B) For each project area to which subdivision (b) of Section 33413 applies, the section addressing the agency developed and project area housing shall contain: (i) Estimates of the number of new, substantially rehabilitated or price - restricted residential units to be developed or purchased within one or more project areas, both over the Life-of-the-plan and during the next 10 years. (ii) Estimates of the number of units of very low -, low -, and moderate - income households required to be developed within one or more project areas in order to meet the requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 33413, both over the Life -of -the plan and during the next 10 years. As indicated in Table 17, 705 units are expected to be built during the 1999 -2004 planning period. Of these, 34 units are expected to be available to very low- income households and a total of 78 units are expected to be available to low- or moderate- income households. After development of these 705 units there remains in the Project Area only two large parcels that are vacant and residentially zoned. The larger parcel, of approximately 285 acres has over one -third of the proposed development located within the Project Area. The estimated units within this area have not been finalized. The other parcel is owned by the Moorpark Unified School District. The School District considers this a surplus properly and has expressed interest in transferring ownership of the property so that housing units can be developed on the site. City Staff estimates that approximately 80 units could be built by a developer on the site pending City approval of necessary land use and zoning changes. In addition to the School District parcel, residential development occurring within the Project Area will be on a parcel by parcel basis consisting of tear down and replacement or other single unit infill developments. Taking this into consideration, Agencystaff estimates that no more than 120 additional units could be constructed in the Project Area during the 2004 - 2009 planning period. Of the 120 new units which could be constructed, seven (7) units (6% of 120 units) must be available to very low- income residents and eleven (11) units (9% of 120 units) must be available to low- or moderate- income residents per the "inclusionary rule" during the 2004 -2009 planning period. For the remaining life of the Redevelopment Plan after 2009, Agency staff estimates that an additional 40 units could be built by developers in the Project Area as a result of tear down and replacement or small infill development. Should this number of units be built over the remaining life of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency would be responsible for 2 very low- income units (6% of 40 units) and 4 low- or moderate - income units (9% of 40 units) per the "inclusionary rule ". 36 c > !g } CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT Section 33413(b)(4) requires that each agency, "...as part of the Implementation Plan required by Section 33490, shall adopt a [Housing Production] Plan...." Section 33413 (b)(4) requires that "[t]he Plan shall be consistent with ... the community's housing element." Additionally, "[t]he Plan shall be reviewed and, if necessary, [be] amended at least every five years in conjunction with either the housing element cycle or the Plan implementation cycle." Chapter V of the State's General Plan Guidelines (the "Guidelines ") states that the term "'consistent with' " means " 'agreement with; harmonious with.' " The general rule of consistency outlined in the Guidelines is that "[a]n action or a program is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment." The City's Housing Element currently includes the following goals related to affordable housing: "Overall Goal 2: Adequate provision of housing allowing maximum choice by type, tenure and location with particular attention to the provision of housing for the elderly, low and moderate income families, handicapped and other households identified as having special housing needs. "Section 2 Goal 2: Meet the needs of current residents of the City of Moorpark by upgrading affordable, low and moderate income units through improvement of existing housing units and promoting greater housing affordability. "Section 3 Goal 2: Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households. The Housing Element is currently in the process of being updated. In compliance with Section 33490 of the CCRL, the Agency has developed, and included in this Implementation Plan, a series of goals and objectives specific to the Project Area. Included in Section IV is the following housing - specific goal and related objectives: GOAL NO. III INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF VERY LOW -, LOW - AND MODERATE - INCOME HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, BOTH FOR OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL MARKETS OBJECTIVES: 111.1 Promote and participate in public/private partnerships with non - profit and for profit developers and /or property owners to rehabilitate existing rental units for very-low and low- income families. 37 x 111.2 Develop and implement owner - occupied, revolving loan program(s) for low- and moderate - income families. 111.3 Increase the number of senior rentals at all income levels. 111.4 Work with property owners and the development community to identify in fill parcels and to develop housing units for very low -, low -, and moderate - income families. Inasmuch as i) the Agency is working to provide affordable housing for all income levels, and most specifically housing for persons of very low -, low- and moderate- incomes; ii) the Agency is required to spend no less than 20 percent of all tax increment monies on affordable housing programs; and iii) the Agency has identified, in Section VI of this Plan,. those housing projects and programs and the number of dwelling units that it projects to develop, rehabilitate or assist development or rehabilitation of, the Agency hereby determines that its proposed housing five -year goals and objectives, ongoing activities, and housing production plan, as outlined in Section VI of this Plan, are consistent with the housing element of the City's General Plan. VII. CONCLUSION This Implementation Plan describes the programs which are proposed to be undertaken by the Agency during the next five years in order to assist in the alleviation of blighting conditions existing in the Project Area, and to increase the community's supply of affordable housing. Redevelopment is, however, a very fluid process subject to a myriad of changing issues and the forces of market dynamics. For these reasons a provision for review and amendment to the Implementation Plan has been included in redevelopment law. The CCRL requires that the implementation plan be the subject of periodic public review. This review must be held in a noticed public hearing at least once during the five -year period, no earlier than two years and no later than three years after adoption of the Implementation Plan. In addition to the mandated review, the Agency may review and amend the plans, goals, objectives and programs and expenditures (following a noticed public hearing) at any time conditions require such an amendment. 38 a APPENDIX 1 AGENCY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AS SET FORTH IN THE INITIAL UPDATE Goal No. 1 Work with the City and Chamber of Commerce to preserve and enhance the economic prosperity of the overall community and aid business development and retention Objectives: a. Provide infrastructure assistance to industrial developers who are creating new industrial sites within the Project Area. b. Develop a commercial rehabilitation loan or grant program. C. Assist in providing adequate parking in the City's central core area, particularly in the High Street area. d. Develop an industrial development loan or grant program. e. Working with the City and Moorpark Chamber of Commerce create a business retention and attraction program utilizing not only Agency funding sources but City, County, State and Federal sources as well. f. Assist new commercial development either through the provision of infrastructure, loan, grant or other appropriate programs. Goal No. 2 Work with the City and Chamber of Commerce to develop an Implementation strategy for Downtown Revitalization Objectives: a. Continue to implement High Street streetscape improvements including benches, planters and decorative lights. b. Work to rehabilitate adjacent residential neighborhoods as needed. C. Work with the City to develop master plan for City and Agency owned property. d. Work with the City to evaluate parking needs and how to provide strategically located parking on High Street including consideration of parking in lieu fee program. e. Continue efforts to enhance the downtown park. f. Work with the Moorpark Chamber of Commerce to develop a Chamber sponsored SBA workshop. g. Work with the City, Chamber of Commerce and SBA to establish information resources and to ensure jobs /housing balance. Goal No. 3 Promote adequate infrastructure for business development 40 Objectives: a. Work with the City to develop City -wide master drainage plan b. Develop an infrastructure assistance program that will be tied into programs that encourage new economic investments in the Project Area specifically and the community at large. C. Use Agency funding sources when possible as matching monies to leverage other possible infrastructure funding sources. d. Work with or assist private sector developers to provide oversized improvements in those instances where future cost savings are evident. Goal No. 4 Promote affordable housing and residential support programs and services Objectives: a. Provide that at least 15% of all new and substantially rehabilitated dwelling units developed within the Project Area by public or private entities or persons other than the Agency shall be at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income. b. Work with City to ensure a balanced land use mix and to develop infill residential development in the downtown area. C. Sponsor housing rehabilitation programs in the Project Area specifically and City -wide, as appropriate. d. Actively pursue First Time Homebuyer Programs with various lending institutions and other programs when applicable. e. Encourage development of senior housing, both rental and ownership. f. Provide assistance to developers where possible when affordability covenants can be secured. g- Work with City staff on ongoing code enforcement program related to residential units. h. Develop and work with "self help" programs, if applicable, to increase home ownership opportunities for low, very low income families. L Work with the City to develop Parks and Service Facilities that serve the Project Area. 41 MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA Redevelopment Agency Meeting 41, ACTT TO: Honorable Board of Directors FROM: Graham Mitchell, Senior Management Analyst %.�� DATE: January 7, 2000 (Meeting of 1/19/00) SUBJECT: Consider the City of Moorpark Downtown Revitalization Study. Background On October 7, 1998, the City Council adopted the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan. Shortly after, the Agency Board selected Katz Hollis to prepare a feasibility /revitalization analysis for the Downtown. This staff report presents the City of Moorpark Downtown Revitalization Study (Study) prepared by Katz Hollis. The Study has been previously reviewed by the City Council's Economic Development Committee. Discussion The Board has recognized that the Downtown plays a vital role in the cultural and economic vitality of the City. Hence, a Downtown Specific Plan was adopted, establishing development guidelines for the Downtown. Shortly after the Specific Plan's adoption, the Board sought a study that would identify the development potential of the Downtown and determine the costs associated with facilitating such development. The Board, after issuing a Request for Proposals, selected Katz Hollis to study the Downtown, analyze its immediate market area, and prepare a revitalization study. .fin , Honorable Board of Directors January 7, 2000 Page 2 The Council's Economic Development Committee has reviewed the Study. It recommends that the Board receive the Study, consider the recommendations contained within, and provide feedback on proceeding with the next phase of implementation. With comments from the Board, the Committee can present a recommendation regarding implementation at a later meeting. The Study is divided into seven chapters. Chapters 1 and 2 provide an overview of the Study, Chapters 3 and 4 provide a market analysis of the Downtown and surrounding commercial areas, Chapter 5 proposes several development concepts, Chapter 6 discusses the public fiscal aspects of implementing proposed development concepts, and Chapter 7 reviews several implementation strategies. The Study also summarizes the results of "reality" testing for the proposed concepts. The Study proposes several development concepts for consideration. It suggests that future development along High Street include a mix of office and retail uses. Office uses would increase day time foot traffic on High Street resulting in an increased demand for retail outlets in the Downtown. Based on a market analysis and existing uses in the Downtown, the Study recommends retail uses such as markets, restaurants, apparel, retail services, home improvement, and arts and crafts. The Study proposes several implementation strategies. First, and foremost, the Study recommends the development of the Agency owned property on the south side of High Street. Its development would jumpstart the overall Downtown revitalization process. The Study also recommends the location of public uses in the Downtown, the recruitment of national retailers, and the marketing of Downtown to consumers in Moorpark, Simi Valley and the Conejo Valley. The Study recommends that the Agency consider financial incentives for retailers and developers. Depending on the aggressiveness in which the Agency wishes to revitalize the Downtown, the Study identifies Agency costs ranging from $1.15 million to $2.91 million with an estimated net gain within fifteen years ranging from $177,150 to a minus $1.12 million. Honorable Board of Directors January 7, 2000 Page 3 The Study recommends that the Agency can use three possible techniques to implement the revitalization strategies identified in the Study. First, the Agency could create a Development Package that would include a description of the Downtown and Agency property and identify potential incentives and programs offered by the Agency to developers and businesses. Second, the Agency could issue a Request for Qualifications or a Request for Proposals to solicit interest from the development community regarding Downtown revitalization projects. Third, the Agency could aid in the implementation of a Downtown marketing campaign. The completion of the Study marks the end of Phase I for the services requested. The Agreement for Services with Katz Hollis identifies a second phase of work to be completed upon the Board's direction. The Agreement lists three tasks to be completed in Phase II: (1) the development of a recruitment strategy, (2) the creation of a specific action plan to recruit developers and businesses, and (3) the development of criteria which the Agency would use in the process to select a developer. It is important to note that the Study provides the Board with suggested actions regarding the revitalization of High Street. As with any major development project, the implementation of the proposals will take time and require long -term planning. Staff Recommendation (1) Receive and file the City of Moorpark Downtown Revitalization Study; and (2) Direct the City Council's Economic Development Committee to develop a recommendation on how to proceed with Phase II. Attachment: City of Moorpark Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY Prepared for: The City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency October 18, 1999 Katz Hollis and Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 0 0 0929 92/kes CONTENTS page Tables and Figures ................... EXECUTIVESUMMARY iii ......................................................................................... ............................... iv Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................... ............................... 1.1 Background .............................. .. ..........,..............,....1 1.2 Project Description ..................... 1.3 Sources of Data ..................... . .......................... .4 Report Overview ........................................ ............................... ............. 4 Chapter 2 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN CAPACITY VERSUS PROJECTIONS .................... 5 2.1 Specific Plan Growth Capacity ........................... :................ ...... ......................... 2.2 Specific Plan Capacity versus Demand Projections ...................... ............................... 5 Chapter 3 MARKET AREA DEMOGRAPHICS AND GROWTH TRENDS ....................... 3.1 Demographic Profile ....... ............................... ...........9 3.2 Growth Trends ................................................ ............................... ....... 9 3.3 Residential Develo Development Activi " " " " " " " "" 9 3.4 Commercial Development Activity ................ 3.5 Office Employment Growth Trends " " "" 13 Chapter 4 p RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS ......... ............................... ..•• 18 4.1 Market Area Performance ... " ° " " ° " " " "" . ................................................... ............................... 4.2 Downtown Market Performance ........................ ................................................... 18 4.3 Inventory.... 18 Retail ........... ............. :................. ... .............................18 ............................. 4 Retail Demand Projections ..................................... ............................... 4.5 Employment Generated Retail Sales .......................................... ............................... 23 4.6 Projected Increase in Square Footage in Downtown Trade Area .............................. 25 4.7 Projected Increase in Taxable Sales in Downtown Trade Area ................ Chapter 5 DOWNTOWN MOORPARK DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS .................... 5.1 Potential Land Uses 29 ...... ............................... 29 5.2 Candidate Tenant Mix .............................. ..............................: 5.3 Testing Development Concepts .................................................. ............................... 38 5.4 Recommended Development Strategies ........................ 5.5 Implementation Priorities and Phasing ................... ... " " " " "' " " "' 41 Chapter 6 PUBLIC FISCAL AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF IMPLEMENTATION ................. 45 6.1 Introduction .............. ... ............................... ..... 45 .2 Creation of the Scenarios .......... ............................... ................ ................................................................. ............................... 45 6.3 Scenario Assumptions ............... ............................... .4 Scenario Descriptions .........:..... •••• 46 ... ............................... 47 6.5 Scenario Assessments .................................... ............................... 6.6 Development Incentives " " "" 48 Chapter 7 IMPLEMENTATION OF DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STRATEGIES .............. 54 7.1 Creation of a Development Package ......................... 7.2 Developer Recruitment ...... ............................... 7.4 Marketing to Consumers ........................ 54 7.3 Developer and Development Selection ....................................... ............................... 55 .................................. ............................... ...............I........... 55 Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Downtown Revitalization Study page i City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 0000-10 Appendices A Retail Inventory ..............:.......................... ............................... B Retail Demand Projections ................. ............................. :. 57 ...................... Block Group Data ........................................................................ ............................... 68 D Prospective Tenant / Developer Letters ...................................... ............................... 71 Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page ii Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 00 0.1 Table TABLES AND FIGURES 2 -1 Specific Plan Growth Capacity Page 2 -2 Downtown Specific Plan vs. Demand Projections ..................:. 3 -1 Selected 1990 Demographic Characteristics ............................... 3 -2 Sub - Regional Socio- Economic Projections .................................... .......................••...... 11 12 3 -3 Residential Development Status Report ............ ............................... 3-4 Commercial Development Status Report .................................................. ....:........................16 3 -5 Total Nonfarm Employment and Office Employment: 1990 -2002 .............................. 4 -1 1997 Taxable Sales by Retail Category ............. . 4 -2 Moorpark and Old Town Moorpark Taxable Sales Comparison ............ ............................... 21 4 -3 Retail Square Footage in Sub - Regional Market Area ............................. ............................... 22 4 -4 Estimated Household Supportable Square Feet ............................. 4 -5 Retail Demand Generated by Employees .............. 24 25 4 -6 Projected Increase in Supportable Square Footage 4 -7 Projected Increased Sales Tax in Downtown .......................... ............• 26 ................. ............................... 28 5 -1 Moorpark Downtown Project Development Feasibility .............. 6 -1 Fiscal Parameters for Development Scenarios - Scenario One ................... 6 -2 Fiscal Parameters for Development Scenarios- Scenario Two ................. ............................... 50 6 -3 Fiscal Parameters for Development Scenarios - Scenario Three ................... 6-4 Public Implementation Costs 51 52 AppendixA ......................................................... ............................... ................... ............................... 57 Appendix B ...................................... ............................... ............................... 62 ...... ............................... AAppendix C ........................................................................................................... ............................... 68 ppendix D ..... ............................... -- -- -r .................................................... ............................... ......... 2 1 -2 Downtown Moorpark " " " "' " " " " " " "" 2 -1 Specific Plan Zoning Map ...................... 3 -1 City of Moorpark Block Groups .................. 3 -2 Moorpark Residential Development Activity .............. " " " " " " "" . . ............................... 4 -1 Los Angeles Region Benchmark, Moorpark, 1997 ............ ................. 5 -1 Granary Site ............................ 5 -2 Station - Oriented Retail ................... ............................ ............................... 5 -3 Moorpark and High Street ..................................................................... ............................... 5-4 Office Building Sites 33 Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Downtown Revitalization Study page iii City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 0000.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Downtown Revitalization Study Executive Summary Introduction The City of Moorpark (City) is located in the southeastern area of Ventura County, approximately fifty miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. This Study's focus is the City's "Old Downtown District" (Downtown), which has declined in recent years as the major flow of traffic shifted to West Los Angeles Avenue after completion of the Simi Valley/Moorpark Freeway. While some businesses still operate in the Downtown, including some long - established enterprises, the City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency (Agency) aims to reestablish Downtown as a .vibrant, economically viable location which residents and businesses find attractive and unique as well as functional. This Study has been prepared to assist the Agency in its efforts to revitalize the Downtown area of the City. First, the Study quantifies the economic development potential of the Downtown over the next fifteen years, that is, the amount of additional office and retail space for which demand exists or will exist. Next, it provides prototypical development modules and site plans for the office and retail uses. Suggested development concepts or themes as well as specific user types are identified based on market area demographics and on commentary provided by active real estate development professionals and retailers. Various incentives to encourage private sector participation, should encouragement be required, are outlined. The modules are applied to potential development sites to form development scenarios and the public cost of implementing those scenarios is quantified. Finally, strategies to implement the revitalization effort are described and discussed. Our findings are intended as an initial step in the process of revitalizing Downtown. Many other steps will follow, but they should only be undertaken if the City and Agency are fully aware of the costs and commitment required to follow through to completion of the task. This Study provides the foundation of that awareness. It quantifies the amount of development that can be anticipated so that a judgment can be made as to the merit of the undertaking. That is, will sufficient development be realized to effect an easily perceived change in the quality of the Downtown's environment and business vitality? The Study also identifies the efforts and costs that will be necessary for the Agency to engender serious proposals leading to the development and subsequent tenancy of new commercial facilities in the Downtown. These efforts may need to be augmented once developers are identified and their specific concerns are voiced. The actions and costs identified herein are those that are necessary to "level the playing field" between Downtown and other potential sites. Market Analysis Chapters One -Four The primary purpose of a market analysis is to identify business opportunities in a community. Its foundations are several. First, an estimate of future population and employment (growth trends and development activity) in a community is calculated. This estimate considers projected population and employment increases over a certain time period given the amount and location of future development that is likely to occur. Second, the type and location of currently available services (market performance) are considered in relation to the demand established by population and employment. The community should be able to attract a large amount of local consumer dollars. If the potential or demand for local sales exists and those sales are not being captured, then leakage is occurring — sales are "leaking" out of the community into other areas. Depending upon the categories where leakage is occurring, it may be possible to capture those dollars locally because demand does exist. Third, assumptions regarding the particular consumers who are most likely to patronize local businesses are made (demand projections) Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Downtown Revitalization Study page iv City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 0000-1-3 which, in turn, affect the type of businesses opportunities that might be available. The results of the Market Analysis are summarized below. Growth Trends Moorpark's population is projected to grow from 29,589 in 1999 to 40,930 by 2015, an increase of 38 percent. The broader, sub - regional Market Area, comprised of the cities of Moorpark, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks, is also projected to experience population growth, but at a lower rate of 17 percent. The California Department of Finance estimated 1997 City median household income at $73,710, one of the highest median incomes (of any city) in Ventura County. Between 2000 and 2015, it is estimated that Ventura County will experience approximately a 43 percent growth in employment while the Sub - regional Market Area employment will grow by 56 percent. At buildout, it is estimated that City employment growth will have increased by 5,522 jobs, or 74 percent. Development Activity Currently, there is considerable residential development activity. At buildout, 3,481 additional housing units are planned for the City; all are projected to be built before 2015. Of the planned buildout total, 2,833 units, or 81 percent, are already in process. Of the units in process, 1,640, or approximately 58 percent, are being built in areas immediately to the north of or near the Downtown. There is also a considerable amount of commercial development activity in process along the heavily traveled Los Angeles Avenue corridor. A total of approximately 441,999 square feet of commercial space is anticipated. Of this amount, only 3,712 square feet, less than 1 percent, are in the Downtown. Market Performance The City, historically, has had a relatively weak retail sales base compared to the Sub - regional Market Area, largely because it lacks significant regional shopping and automobile sales. In 1997, the City's per capita retail sales of $2,824 were approximately 34 percent of the Sub - regional Market Area average of $8,385. There is a considerable amount of retail sales leakage, from the City to other areas, in most categories. Moopark's Downtown consistently captured about 4 percent of citywide taxable sales from 1992 through 1998. The neighborhood retail and restaurant category primarily serves the population located within close proximity to the Downtown. Demand Projections Retail demand potential will be driven by: 1) local households; 2) commuters to the Downtown Metrolink Stations; 3) increased traffic through the area; and 4) private and public sector employment. The most significant source of demand is projected as a result of the increase in households. Household demand in Moorpark is projected to increase supportable retail by 410,000 square feet over the period 2000 - 2015. Significantly, 47 percent of the total increment can be attributed to new housing development north of or near the Downtown. Of the 410,00 square feet, it is expected that the Downtown will capture between 63,856 square feet and 108,107 square feet of this potential. Proposed Development Concepts Chapter Five Market Analysis is an art, not a science. While the Analysis indicates demand, it is the interpretation of data from the Analysis and the consideration of other factors unique to Downtown that result in recommendations for a particular use(s) and overall theme(s). The Downtown candidate tenant mix and development concepts are recommended based on the Market Analysis that indicates that the City has: 1) a relatively younger population than average; 2) a larger concentration of population in ages for which household related expenditures are relatively higher; 3) a higher incidence of home ownership; 4) more Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page v Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 000014 children per household; and 5) relatively more affluence than surrounding areas. Recommendations are also based on the�fact that in addition to the increasing household population, the employment base is growing. This growth will increase the demand for convenient office locations. Additionally, there are factors unique to the Downtown such as the existence of the Granary and the location of a commuter train station that are pertinent. In order to test assumptions regarding tenant mix and development concept, developers and retailers were contacted. The results of those contacts, as well as feedback from local businesspersons, are positive given certain conditions. For purposes of further analysis, proposed modules are included as well as hypothetical site layouts. Finally, development strategies are included which consider all of the above information. Potential Land Uses Land uses are described generally and then, specifically for particular sites in the Downtown. Generally, the Downtown should be redeveloped with land uses that draw upon: • the large home ownership /family life styles of the Moorpark population; • the existing Downtown businesses which will be retained; • the tight office space market in Moorpark; and • the unique ambiance of Downtown's "Old Town" characteristics. Candidate Tenant Mix The Downtown tenant mix should focus on neighborhood and complimentary uses, with an urban design that encourages pedestrian orientation. Recommended uses that support this development concept are: • food, including bakeries, convenience markets, ethnic foods (both prepared and unprepared), and Farmers' Markets; • restaurants and cafes (particularly with sidewalk/outdoor spaces) such as bagel and juice bars, coffee houses /bars, yogurt and ice cream shops, and breakfast, lunch and dinner restaurants; • apparel, including women's and children's clothing and casual, western or vintage clothing; • other retail, including specialty bookshops, used books and newspapers /magazines, small business office users, audio /video (with both English and Spanish titles), and stationery store /office supplies /greeting cards; • services including dry cleaners (drop- off/non- plant), day care center, beauty services (salon and supplies); mail/parcel package services, copy center /one hour photo, travel agency; and • alternative themes which might include design, home improvement, arts and crafts, or entertainment. Testing Development Concepts In order to test the development concepts and tenant mix, major retailers and developers with an interest in Downtown locations were contacted. Several retailers and developers indicate interest conditioned upon one or more of the following Agency and/or City actions: • undertaking a retailer recruitment effort; • securing a competent developer for the Agency's High Street property; • providing appropriate financial incentives, if necessary; • relocating public facilities to the Downtown area; • marketing Downtown to local and area consumers; and • improving Downtown's physical appearance and increasing the perception of safety. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page vi Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 0000 -15 Nine real estate developers were contacted who specialize in retail or office /retail development. Three of the four developers who responded, also expressed interest in Downtown. The developers' interest is contingent upon the Agency and/or City: • selling or ground - leasing Agency -owned sites at attractive rates and terms; • providing financial incentives to retailers, if necessary; • expending monies to physically revitalize Downtown; • undertaking a vigorous marketing and recruitment effort; and • cooperating and facilitating entitlements, permits and approvals. Recommended Development Strategy Five key initial development strategies are recommended to promote the revitalization of the Downtown: • Develop the Agency -owned property on High Street; • Consider the relocation of public use(s) to Downtown; • Increase traffic into the Downtown and recruit developers and retailers; • Consider financial incentives, if necessary, for retailers and developers; and • Market Downtown to the entire City and to sub - regional market area consumers. Implementation Phasing and Priorities It is anticipated that the revitalization of the Downtown will occur over a four to six year period based on the need to phase various elements of the effort. The City's ongoing actions to expand retail, office and public and entertainment activities in the Downtown should focus on achieving the five key_ implementation strategies outlined above. Impact of Implementation on Public Revenues Chapter Six The analysis of the impact of implementation on public revenues uses the development capacities and strategies developed in earlier chapters, namely the analysis of market demand for retail and office space and market -driven development prototypes augmented with consideration of the physical portion (s) of the Downtown. The result is the development of three "layout" scenarios. Each calculates net implementation cost to the Agency without development incentives. Scenario Two, which utilizes all near -term development potential, is recommended. Creation of the Scenarios The scenarios derive from the attempt to achieve three goals, all of which are desirable but difficult to achieve simultaneously given the development potential outlined in earlier chapters of this Study. These goals include: • elimination of offensive uses; • reinforcement of existing desirable uses; and • obtaining the highest leverage of public resources by using Agency -owned land. The first scenario analyzes development of the Agency -owned site; the second analyzes development of a greater portion of the west end of High Street (including the Agency -owned site); and the third analyzes development on the east end of High Street, removing the most apparent blight. Any of the three scenarios would be complemented by public development in the Downtown. -at nums a.o[aniey m. NOiiman ASSOCIateS, Inc. page vii Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 0000-16 Scenario Assumptions A financing analysis is included which makes certain assumptions regarding specific costs and determines the total public costs of the implementation of each scenario. The only public resource included in the analyses is tax increment as it is the only significant net revenue to be generated. Without public- sector participation, the majority of the proposed retail development would probably occur elsewhere in the City. Therefore, there would be no significant net gain of sales tax revenue resulting from Downtown development. Scenario Descriptions and Assessments At a cost of approximately $650,000, the recommended scenario, Scenario Two, provides for full absorption of the near term retail and office potential and utilization of the Agency -owned site. It concentrates development along the west end of High Street in order to help build a critical mass that would evidence a turn around, thus stimulating other subareas to follow suit. Scenario One looks at redeveloping the Agency -owned property at the southwest end of High Street. It does not provide for full absorption of the development potential. And has a total development cost of approximately $183,000. Scenario Three contemplates the development of a portion of the east end of High Street. At a total cost of approximately $1,500,000 some of the worst blight would be removed under this scenario. However, it does not have the potential, by itself, to create a "sense of place" around which a new Downtown could be built. Development Incentives Under all three scenarios the Agency has costs which exceed resources generated by the development_ These estimated costs range from over $180,000 to over $1,500,000. Subsidies or incentives may also be necessary. Despite payment of market rate for the land, a developer may feel that extraordinary risks associated with a particular site entitle him/her to a return above that which the market provides. A detailed list of incentives, which could be considered, is provided in Chapter Five. Implementation of Revitalization Strategies Chapter Seven This Chapter outlines techniques for implementing revitalization strategies through the active solicitation of the development community and through the marketing of the Downtown. The Agency has broad latitude in determining the method of selecting a developer. The selection process is vital to the success of any project as it begins to forge the public /private partnership necessary to achieve the Agency's redevelopment_ goals and the developer's reasonable return on investment. Concurrently, the City can aid in the implementation of its Downtown revitalization plans by marketing the area to local and sub - regional consumers. Creation of a Development Package Preparation of the development package is the first step in the developer recruitment effort. It should contain enough information for the developer to assess project feasibility and should identify the components of an acceptable development ;proposal. This information also should paint a clear picture of the Agency's goals, including design goals for the Downtown. Developer Recruitment and Selectiolj>t A competitive bid basis is felt by many developers to be unsatisfactory. The process of inviting full -scale presentations and proposals is costly and thus discourages developers from participating. For this reason a sequence of the issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) followed by the issuance of a Request Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page viii Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 0000_1,-;,f for Proposals (RFP), is recommended. Responses to the RFQ will help the Agency to identify a pool of interested developers; the RFP will solicit qualified developers from this pool. Marketing to Consumers Concurrent with the above process and toward the end of demonstrating its support for the Downtown, the Agency should market the Downtown to local and sub - regional consumers. A variety of means are available including ads and articles in local newspapers, special "All Downtown Sales" days, holding special events in the Downtown, supporting the formation of a merchants' association and explaining the Downtown's revitalization progress to the public at large. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency page ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background This Study has been prepared to provide support for alternative development concepts for the Downtown revitalization effort. It builds upon the earlier Downtown Specific Plan, which identified the need for a detailed market evaluation. The four main objectives of the Study are: 1. Identify economic development potential and its land use implications for the Downtown; 2. Translate that potential into "reality tested" development scenarios; 3. Determine the impact of implementation on public revenues; and 4. Implement revitalization strategies. 1.2 Project Description The City of Moorpark is located in the southeastern area of Ventura County, fifty miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles as shown in Figure 1 -1. Moorpark is recognized for having the lowest number of serious crimes committed in Ventura County and ranks among the top in terms of median household income. Moorpark was ranked the 6th safest city in its size class in the United States. Cities surrounding Moorpark and used to -define the Sub - regional Market Area include Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks. In addition to the surrounding cities, there are pockets of unincorporated areas nearby. This study focuses on the City of Moorpark's Old Town Commercial District, shown in Figure 1 -2. The commercial activity is primarily concentrated along High Street and Moorpark Avenue. The Downtown commercial core has suffered in recent years as the major flow of traffic has shifted to West Los Angeles Avenue following completion of the Simi Valley/Moorpark Freeway. The City seeks to reestablish_ Downtown as a vibrant, economically viable area with characteristics unique to Moorpark. 1.3 Sources of Data Several information systems were used for this analysis and include the following sources: • Population and Housing Estimates, from the California Department of Finance, January 1, 1997; • Housing, population and employment projections from the Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG); • Labor force, housing, income and other selected demographic information from the U. S. Census and updated statistics from National Decision Systems (NDS); • Employment trends from the California Department of Employment Development; • Taxable sales information from 1990 through 1998 from the California State Board of Equalization and Moorpark, through their contractor, Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates ; • Residential and non - residential development status information from the City's Planning Department, additional information from City's Finance and Administrative staff; and • Field survey of retail market inventory in Moorpark, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks. Mailed surveys and personal interviews were used to determine the level of prospective tenant and real estate developer commercial interest in the Downtown. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 1 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 0000:13 Figure 1 -1: City of Moorpark Regional Map 1 0 - ""1,,.,,ur�' • Camarillo,CA ,CA ST 1 1 WB �1 • Thousand Oak s,CA ...■r. • Calabasas,CA di"'. J� r Agoura HIIIs,CA iOtM' BA ",pip ip 0 1997 by Rand McNally & Company. All rights reserved. C C Figure 1 -2: Downtown Moorpark 9 RAILROAD Moorpark Avenue � , Lassen 8r� a' Heigh Street Av 1 It AV Hill ©1997 by Rand McNally & Company. All rights reserved. 1.4 Report Overview Chapter 2 presents a summary of the land use capacity identified in the Downtown Specific Plan and compares it against the High and Low Scenarios of retail and office development projections for the Downtown Market Area. Chapter 3 focuses on market area demographics and growth trends, including population, household information and employment profiles. Chapter 4 presents the retail market analysis, including a discussion of the existing sub - regional retail inventory and projections of household retail demand for the City and the Downtown. A discussion of other sources of demand from rail commuters and Downtown employment is also presented. Chapter 5 presents development concepts that are also tested through contacts with prospective tenants and developers. Chapter 6 identifies and analyzes several financial scenarios regarding development in the Downtown area. Chapter 7 presents techniques for implementing the revitalization strategies in the Downtown and the recruitment of qualified developers and retailers. Appendices A through C include detailed retail inventory, retail projections and block group census data. Samples of the contact letters are included in Appendix D. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 4 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency CHAPTER 2 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN CAPACITY VERSUS PROJECTIONS This chapter examines growth projections for residential and non - residential land uses in the Downtown. The City's Downtown Specific Plan capacity at buildout is compared to projections made for this Downtown revitalization area shown in Figure 2 -1. 2.1 Specific Plan Growth Capacity For the purposes of comparing Specific Plan capacity at buildout with growth projections, High Street and Moorpark Avenue are the primary focus of the study. Table 2 -1 estimates increases and decreases in residential and non - residential building square footage on High Street and Moorpark Avenue. Estimates are shown for existing conditions as well as for proposed buildout in 2015. By 2015, it is estimated that no residential building square footage will remain on High Street. It is estimated in the Specific Plan that commercial square footage on High Street will increase from the existing 102,600 square feet to 209,000 square feet by proposed buildout for an increase of 106,400 square feet. It is estimated that Moorpark Avenue's existing residential is 17,300 square feet. Like High Street, it is expected that all residential square footage on Moorpark Avenue will be completely phased out by buildout. It is estimated that commercial square footage will increase by 54,900 square feet at buildout. Office square footage is expected to increase by only 15,700 square feet at buildout. The total estimated decrease in residential square .footage for both streets totals 29,000 square feet, while combined commercial square footage growth at buildout is projected at 161,300 square feet. Additionally, 561 parking spaces are potentially added along with 8,000 square feet of public institutional space. 2.2 Specific Plan Capacity versus Demand Projections A detailed analysis of growth projections for the Downtown revitalization area and the City of Moorpark are presented in Chapter 4. Demand projections prepared in Chapter 4, shown in Table 4 -6, are compared in this chapter with Specific Plan capacities. In Chapter 4 comparisons between the Specific Plan's growth capacity and the study's demand projections are made for non - residential land use categories. As shown in Table 2 -2, low demand projections for commercial square feet are 27 percent of the Specific Plan's growth capacity estimate of 161,300; while the high demand projections for commercial square feet total 42 percent of the Specific Plan estimate as shown in Table 2 -2. For office space, the Downtown Specific Plan estimates only about a 15,700 square foot increase at ,buildout. Low demand projections exceed Specific Plan estimates by 28 percent, while high demand projections are 156 percent above those in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan indicates a total of 8,000 new public institutional square footage will be established in the Downtown. While this land use category was not specifically analyzed, the City of Moorpark's potential relocation of public uses could encourage more economic activity Downtown. This type of development would be beneficial to future developments in the Downtown. vma u vim nvy -. norrman /Associates, Inc. Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency page 5 000023 tae 1/ R-PD-7-14u* t M- -.0 ...... 'A r J J J. . . . . . . . . . . - . . . 7 t z 1j; L. .. . .......... N V, j LJ Park Avenue MUM-Family R-0o,bea Density bonus of up to 14du allowed with lot consolidation and replacement structures, and lo/very low income or senior housing. up to vv 20 du allo\%,ed upon meeting criteria for V1 U j Les Angeles Avenue ............ .. . ............. Figure 2-1 Specific Plan Zoning Map IN I L.j (R - 1) Single Family Residential (R - 2) Tv.-Family Residential (RPD) Residential Planned Development, 7-14unitslacre (C - 0) Office (C - 1) Neighborhood Commercial ED (C - OT) Old T.,v. Commercial (C-2) Gc.c.1 Commercial O(CPD) C.m,-c.,c:i.1 Planned Development (1) Institutional (N1 - 1) Industrial Park Specific Plan Boundary TABLE 2 -1 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY SPECIFIC PLAN GROWTH CAPACITY Zoning Land Square Footage Building Square Footage (Residential) Building Square Footage (Commercial) Parking Spaces C -2, CPD, M -1, M -2 C -OT, M -1, CPD 564,700 564,700 0 11,700 0 (11,700) 102,600 209,000 106,400 432 733 301 C -1, C -O, C-OT, M-1, CPD Propo sed 676,500 High Street Existing Build out Change Zoning Land Square Footage Building Square Footage (Residential) Building Square Footage (Commercial) Parking Spaces C -2, CPD, M -1, M -2 C -OT, M -1, CPD 564,700 564,700 0 11,700 0 (11,700) 102,600 209,000 106,400 432 733 301 Zoning Land Square Footage Building Square Footage (Residential) Building Square Footage (Commercial) Building Square Footage (Office) Public Institutional Parking Spaces C -1, C -2, M -1, CPD C -1, C -O, C-OT, M-1, CPD Proposed 676,500 Moorpark Avenue Existing Buildout Chan e Zoning Land Square Footage Building Square Footage (Residential) Building Square Footage (Commercial) Building Square Footage (Office) Public Institutional Parking Spaces C -1, C -2, M -1, CPD C -1, C -O, C-OT, M-1, CPD Proposed 676,500 676,500 0 17,300 0 (17,300) 45,800 100,700 54,900 8,500 24,150 15,650 0 8,000 8,000 193 453 260 Land Square Footage Building Square Footage (Residential) Building Square Footage (Commercial) Building Square Footage (Office) Public Institutional Parking Spaces Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan 1,241,200 1,241,200 Proposed 29,000 Total Existing I Buildout I Change Land Square Footage Building Square Footage (Residential) Building Square Footage (Commercial) Building Square Footage (Office) Public Institutional Parking Spaces Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan 1,241,200 1,241,200 0 29,000 0 (29,000) 148,400 309,700 161,300 8,500 24,150 15,650 0 8,000 8,000 625 1,186 561 TABLE 2 -2 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY COMPARISON OF PROJECTIONS: DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN VS. DEMAND PROJECTIONS Residential Sq. Ft. 29,000 n/a n/a Downtown Low % of Specific High %of Specific Increase b Cate o Specific Plan Projection Plan Growth Projection I Plan Growth Residential Sq. Ft. 29,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a Commercial Sq. Ft. 161,300 43,856 27.2% 68,107 42.2% Office Sq. Ft.' 15,650 20,000 127.8% 40,000 255.6% Public Institutional Sq. Ft. 8,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a Parking Spaces 561 n/a n/a n/a n/a Note: 1. Percentages of Specific Plan growth shown for office space are in excess of 15.7 thousand square feet identified by the Specific Plan. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. CHAPTER 3 MARKET AREA DEMOGRAPHICS AND GROWTH TRENDS This chapter addresses certain socioeconomic characteristics for Ventura County, the Subregional and Downtown Market Areas and the City of Moorpark. The City of Moorpark and its Downtown Trade Area are shown in Figure 3 -1. The Downtown Trade Area is comprised of U.S. Census Block Group numbers 76.015, 76.021 and 76.022. 3.1 Demographic Profile Table 3 -1 shows some general demographic characteristics of Moorpark and the Downtown Trade Area populations. According to 1990 U.S. Census data, the most complete demographic data, the City population was about 26,673 and the Downtown Trade Area had a population of 4,722 or about 18 percent of the total. The January 1, 1999 population estimate for the City was 29,589. Within the City of Moorpark the Hispanic population comprises about 22 percent of the total. In contrast, the Hispanic population of the Downtown Trade Area is about 64 percent of that area. The City of Moorpark and the Downtown Trade Area are very similar in the age distribution of the population, with 63 percent of Moorpark's population between the ages of 18 -64 and 61 percent of the Downtown Trade Area's population within this age distribution. Median income in 1990 for the City of Moorpark was $61,397 while the median income for the Downtown Trade Area is estimated at $43,607. The California Department of Finance estimated 1997 City median household income at $73,710. While the Downtown Trade Area is less affluent than other_ parts of the City, the Downtown median income does indicate sizable purchasing power. There is also a significant disparity between the two areas in terms of housing tenure. In the City as a whole, almost 77 percent of housing units were owner occupied while only 50 percent of the Downtown Trade Area units were owner occupied. Throughout the City, 20 percent of residential units are renter occupied, while 46 percent are renter occupied in the Downtown Trade Area. 3.2 Growth Trends Table 3 -2 shows socio- economic projections for the Sub - region defined as the cities of Moorpark, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks; it also shows projections for all of Ventura County. It is expected that between 2000 and 2015 the three cities that comprise the Sub - regional Market Area will experience a 17 percent population increase, growing to 297,798 by the year 2015. Ventura County's population is projected to grow by 21 percent. Significantly, Moorpark's population is expected to grow 38 percent over that time, increasing by 11,300 to a total projected population in 2015 of 40,930. The number of households is estimated to increase by 25 percent in Ventura County.and 19 percent in the Sub- regional Market Area from 2000 to 2015. Moorpark is again expected to experience more rapid household growth over the period, increasing by 38 percent and 3,481 households by the year 2015. Employment growth is also expected to be significant in Moorpark between 2000 and 2015. It is estimated that Ventura County will experience about a 43 percent growth in employment while Sub - regional Market Area employment will grow by 56 percent. Moorpark employment growth is estimated to increase by 74 percent by buildout or an additional 5,522 jobs. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.. page 9 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 00002 7 I Age Distribution Population under 18 TABLE 3-1 33.3% 1,582 33.5% MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY 16,759 62.8% SELECTED 1990 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 60.7% Population 65 + 1.044 Downtown 274 5.8% L.Moorpark' Percent Trade Areal Percent POPULATION 100.0% Median Age 31.4 Total Persons 26,673 4,722 Median Household Size White 21,090 79.1% 2,502 53.0% Black 402 1.5% 34 0.7% Asian 1,713 6.4% 54 1.1% Other Races 3,468 13.0% 2,132 45.2% 26,673 100.0% 4,722 100.0% Total Hispanic 5,917 22.2% 3,017 63.9% Total Non-hispanic 20.756 77.8% 1,705 36.1% 34 26,673 100.0% 4,722 100.0% Age Distribution Population under 18 8,870 33.3% 1,582 33.5% Population 18 - 64 16,759 62.8% 2,866 60.7% Population 65 + 1.044 3.9% 274 5.8% Total 26,673 100.0% 4,722 100.0% Median Age 31.4 N/A Median Household Size 3.35 3.94 HOUSEHOLDS Total Households 7,968 1,199 Income Distribution Less than $5000 84 1.1% 43 3.6% $5= to $9999 132 1.7% 34 2.9% $10000 to $14999 206 2.7% 82 6.9% $15000 to $19999 273 3.6% 124 10.4% $20000 to $29999 501 6.5% 96 8.1% $30000 to $49999 1,386 18.1% 316 26.6% $50000 to $74999 2,626 34.2% 322 27.1% $75000 and over 2.464 32.1% 171 14.4% Total 7,672 - 100.0% 1,188 100.0% Median Income $61,937 $43,607 Average Income $63,824 $46,436 HOUSING Total Housing Units 8,272 1,249 Vacant Housing Units 304 50 Tenure Owner Occupied 6,354 628 Percent of Total Units 76.8% 50.3% Renter Occupied 1,614 571 Percent of Total Units 19.5% 45.7% Source: 1990 Census, STFIA and STF3A Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Notes: 1. Moorpark City totals calculated by summing data for the 9 block groups that comprise City. 2. The Downtown Market Area is defined as the following Block Groups: 76.015, 76.021 and 76.022. TABLE 3 -2 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY SUB - REGIONAL SOCIO- ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS 2,879 0.4% 148,899 20.9% F--,9941 - Population Em to ent 2000-20151 1994 19971 20DOI 2015 Moorpark 27,170 27,372 29,617 40,930 Simi Valley 103,699 104,128 106,815 126,554 Thousand Oaks 110,160 110.399 118,000 130.314 Total Cities 241,029 241,899 254,432 297,798 Ventura County 709,755 725,917 712,634 861,533 % Cities of County 34.0% 33.3% 35.7% 34.6% 306,606 438,144 Households 19941 19971 20001 2015 Moorpark 8,021 8,669 9,113 12,594 Simi Valley 33,155 33,992 35,005 42,906 Thousand Oaks 38.593 39.609 41.600 46.300 Total Cities 79,769 82,270 86,718 101,800 Ventura County 228,557 232,831 237,545 297,378 % Cities of County 34.9% 35.3% 36.1% 34.2% 2,879 0.4% 148,899 20.9% F--,9941 Em to ent 2000-20151 %change 19971 20001 2015 9.0% Moorpark 6,153 7,005 7,513 13,035 18.5% Simi Valley 27,925 31,271 34,870 75,216 6.6% Thousand Oaks 67.697 68.141 69.810 87.237 42.9% Total Cities 101,776 106,417 112,293 175,488 Ventura County 282,497 293,951 306,606 438,144 C % Cities of County 36.0% 36.2% 36.6% 40.1% 0 0 co Source: Ventura Council of Governments Forecasts, 1997 -2015, March 1999 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 2,879 0.4% 148,899 20.9% Change in Population 1894 -2000 % change 1 2000-20151 %change 2,447 9.0% 11,313 38.2% 3,116 3.0% 19,738 18.5% 7.840 7.1% 12.314 10.4% 13,403 6.6% 43,366 17.0% 2,879 0.4% 148,899 20.9% 8,988 3.9% 59,833 25.2% Change in Households 1994 -2000 % change 2000 -2015 % change 1,092 13.6% 3,481 38.2% 1,850 5.6% 7,901 22.6% 3.007 7.8% 4.700 11.3% 5,949 7.6% 16,082 18.8% 8,988 3.9% 59,833 25.2% M Change in Employment 1994 -2000 % change 1 2000 -2015 % change 1,360 22.1% 5,522 73.50/. 7,045 25.2% 40,246 115.1% 22113 3a0/6 17.427 25.0% 10,518 10.3% 63,195 66.3% 24,109 8.5% 131,538 42.9% M Another indicator--of growth in Moorpark is the City's job/housing balance. Household and employment figures indicate that the job/housing balance will shift more in Moorpark's favor in the future. In 1997, there were an estimated 0.81 jobs per household in the City; a figure that is forecasted to increase to 1.04 by 2015. The data presented in Table 3 -2 identify the City of Moorpark as a growing and dynamic jurisdiction when compared to the Sub- regional Market Area and Ventura County. While Moorpark is a relatively small portion of the Sub - region, these growth trends have important land use implications for the Downtown area. 3.3 Residential Development Activity There is considerable residential development activity currently in process for Moorpark as shown in Table 3 -3. At buildout, there are 3,481 additional housing units planned for the City of Moorpark, all of which are projected to be built by 2015. Of that total, 2,833 housing units, or 81 percent are already under construction or in process. Of these 2,833 units, 1,640, or about 58 percent are being built in areas immediately north of or near the Downtown. Figure 3 -2 is a map that shows the location of the various residential development areas in the City. The 1,640 housing units near Downtown will be built in areas 1, 3, 8, 11, 13 and 14 as shown in Figure 3 -2. 3.4 Commercial Development Activity There is also a considerable amount of commercial development activity in process in Moorpark as shown in Table 3 -4 with the majority of the square footage in process along the heavily traveled Los Angeles Avenue corridor. A total of 441,999 square feet of commercial space are in process, but only 3,712 square feet, or less than 1 percent are in the Downtown area. 3.5 Office Employment Growth Trends Non -farm employment and office employment trends by industry for Ventura County are shown in Table 3 -5. Panel A of the table lists historical data as well as employment projections. Panel B of Table 3 -5 shows that overall office employment has grown and will continue to do so rapidly in Ventura County. The three industry sectors chosen are indicators of office growth potential. Office employment grew 3.4 % annually between 1990 and 1998 and is expected to grow by 3.8 % annually between 1998 and 2002. It is estimated that 58 percent of employment growth between 1990 and 1998 occurred in the office sector, while 33 percent of employment growth between 1998 and 2000 is projected to occur in these sectors. This strong projected growth in professional and medical office employment indicates that there is potential for Moorpark to foster a stronger office sector Downtown that would further diversify its economy. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 13 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 000031 TABLE 3-3 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STATUS REPORT Name of Project Status Use Units /Sgft I Acres Developer 1 Hitch Ranch In process SFD /MFD 605 285 Levy Company 2 Bollinger Development Tract approved, PD permit in process. SF /MF; 2 golf courses, 216 655 Bollinger Development, Inc. equestrian staging area; , 3 Lennar Homes' Under construction SFD /MFD 145 110 Lennar Homes 4 Lennar Homes' Under construction SFD 160 83 Lennar Homes 5 Lennar Homes' Tract approved, PD permit in process SFD 109 57 Lennar Homes 6 Lennar Homes' Tract apprved, PD permit in process SFD 138 90 Lennar Homes 7 Morrison Fountainwood Aguora In process SFD 598 445 Morrison Fountainwood Aguora 8 Pack Communities In process SFD 249 35 Pacific Communities 9 Far West Homes In process MFD 80 9 Far West Homes 10 Suncal Companies In process MFD 154 70 Suncal Companies 11 Archstone Communities In process MFD apartments 312 18 Archstone Communities 12 Cabrillo Economic Development In process SFD 59 7 Cabrillo Economic Development Company 13 Manny Asdurian, Jr. In process SFD 8 N/A Manny Asdurian, Jr. Total Units 2,833 1,864 Note: 1. The Lennar Homes projects may constitute as many as 552 homes. Source: Residential, Commercial and Industrial Quarterly Development Status Report, City of Moorpark, March 1999 C 0 N .��f lJl.i- FIGURE 3 -2 MOORPARK RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY X11 • Ate Orr • - �/'� • �a "'�' , � � �`�i �i%� ��,•�a/LL:.It���l� �! �? � ` fir', � „... , residential HOME 04� process '* • Moorpark 1,640 residential units will be located near downtowr TABLE 3-4 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STATUS REPORT Name of Project Status Use Units /Sgft I Acres Developer 1 Carlsberg Financial Corp.' Specific plan approved CPD 320,000 29 Carlsberg Financial Corp. 2 AMCAL In process Daycare Learning Center 3 John Newton & Associates Graded, construction not yet begun 4 Deewayne Jones Approved, not yet 5 Damon Group Ramseyer In process Total Mayflower Market Commercial center Health care facility 10,000 n/a AMCAL 3,712 0.2 John Newton & Associates 57,300 4 Deewayne Jones 50.987 4 Damon Group Ramseyer 441,999 37.2 Note: 1. Square footage for this project is an estimate since a specific site plan has not yet been submitted. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Residential, Commercial and Industrial Quarterly Development Status Report, City of Moorpark, March 1999 TABLE 3 -5 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY VENTURA COUNTY TOTAL NONFARM EMPLOYMENT AND OFFICE EMPLOYMENT: 1990 -2002 Industrial Category Employment by Industry Average Annual Change 1990 1 1998 1 2002 1990 -1998 1 1998 -2002 .. 0 ..... ............................... ............................. ............................... 1,900 Mining 2,300 Construction 14,000 Nondurable manufacturing 7,700 Durable manufacturing 24,400 Transportation and public utilities 11,800 Wholesale trade 11,600 Retail trade 46,200 Finance, insurance, real estate 12,100 Services: 56,100 Business Services 13,700 Health Services 14,100 Other Services 28,300 Government 44,200 Total Employment 230,400 1,300 1,900 -6.9% 10.0% 12,300 12,500 -1.6% 0.4% 9,100 8,800 2.1% -0.8% 25,400 24,700 0.5% -0.7 % 10,300 11,700 -1.7% 3.2% 12,400 15,300 0.8% 5.4% 47,600 54,500 0.4% 3.4% 13,500 13,600 1.4% 0.2% 76,500 89,300 4.0% 3.9% 22,300 25,800 6.3% 3.7% 16,300 21,000 1.8% 6.5% 37,900 42,500 3.7% 2.9% 43,000 44,300 -0.3% 0.7% 251,400 276,600 1.1% 2.4% Finance, insurance, real estate 12,100 13,500 13,600 1.4% 0.2% Business Services 13,700 22,300 25,800 6.3% 3.7 % Health Services 14,100 16,300 21,000 1.8% 6.5% Office Employment 39,900 Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 52,100 60,400 3.4% 3.8 % California Employment Development Department, Annual Average Industry Employment, 1990 -1998 California Employment Development Department, Employment Projections by Industry, 1996 -2002 CHAPTER 4 _ RETAIL MARKET ANALYSIS This chapter examines the retail market performance and taxable sales trends for Moorpark and the Sub - Regional Study Area. Retail demand projections for the Downtown Trade Area are also presented along with incremental sales tax projections. 4.1 Market Area Performance Retail Sales Performance Compared to the Sub - regional Market Area, the City of Moorpark has a weak retail sales base as shown in Table 4 -1, largely because it lacks significant regional shopping and automobile sales. The latest available full year taxable retail sales data is for 1997. In 1997, Moorpark's per capita retail sales of $2,824 were only about 34 percent of the Sub - regional Market Area average of $8,385. Thousand Oaks per capita retail sales were estimated at 145 percent of the Sub - regional Market Area figure, while Simi Valley's was estimated at about 70 percent. Moorpark sales accounted for $125.3 million, or 5 percent of the Sub- regional Market Area total sales of $2.5 billion in 1997. By comparison, Thousand Oaks accounted for about 64 percent of total taxable sales in the Sub - regional Market Area while Simi Valley's taxable sales accounted for 31 percent. Retail Leakage Analysis There is a considerable amount of retail sales leakage from Moorpark to other areas, as shown in Figure 4 -1. Only the Food Stores category is capturing more than its share of local household purchasing power. All other categories, especially. Apparel, General Merchandise, Building Materials, Auto Dealers, Auto Supplies and Other Retail are experiencing a significant amount of leakage. Leakage in Apparel and General Merchandise is due to the lack of market support for regional shopping centers in Moorpark. 4.2 Downtown Market Performance According to sub -area taxable sales data, Moorpark's Downtown consistently captured about 4 percent of citywide taxable sales from 1992 to 1998, as shown in Table 4 -2. The largest taxable sales volume exists in the retail category that includes grocery stores. This category accounted for about 60 percent of Downtown taxable sales in 1998. This neighborhood retail category is primarily serving the population located within close proximity to the Downtown. The Restaurants and Food category has fluctuated from about 16 to 24 percent from 1992 to 1998, with about 20 percent in 1998. Over time, this category is viewed as having significant growth potential to serve office workers, local households and commuters. 4.3 Retail Inventory Gross leasable retail square footage in the Sub - regional Market Area totals about 5.6 million square feet, as shown in Table 4 -3. About 462,800 square feet of the inventory, or 8.2 percent, is located in Moorpark. By comparison, about 64 percent are located in Thousand Oaks with the remaining 28 percent in Simi Valley. The estimated vacancy rate for retail space is slightly higher in Moorpark at 6.5 % than the 5.1 % average for the Sub - regional Market Area. The retail inventory in Moorpark is primarily neighborhood and community serving retail. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 18 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 00003E TABLE 4 -1 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY 1997 TAXABLE SALES BY RETAIL CATEGORY (in 000's of 1997 dollars) Apparel stores $985 __F_ $94,602 Sub- regional Type of Business Moorpark Simi Valley Thousand Oaks Market Area Apparel stores $985 $17,099 $94,602 $112,686 General merchandise stores $13,092 $123,655 $179,948 $316,695 Food stores $14,683 $61,248 $78,805 $154,736 Eating and drinking places $16,995 $82,566 $132,762 $232,323 Home furnishings and appliances $448 $10,499 $73,696 $84,643 Bldg, matrl, and farm implements $1,435 $53,936 $83,331 $138,702 Auto dealers and auto supplies $2,851 $115,622 $374,536 $493,009 Service stations $14,992 $64,836 $65,029 $144,857 Other retail stores $11,831 $78,896 $260,034 $350,761 Retail stores total $77,312 $608,357 $1,342,743 $2,028,412 All other outlets $48,000 $183,373 $285,766 $517,139 Total all outlets $125,312 $791,730 $1,628,509 $2,545,551 Population 27,372 104,128 110,399 241,899 Per Capita Retail Sales $2,824 $5,842 $12,163 $8,385 Percent of PMA 33.7% 69.7% 145.0% Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Taxable Sales in California, During 1997 California State Board of Equalization 000037 $200 $0 ($200) ($400) ($600) ($800) ($1,000) ($1,200) FIGURE 4 -1 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY RETAIL SALES LEAKAGE PER CAPITA LOS ANGELES REGION BENCHMARK, MOORPARK, 1997 qop d� Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. (�J Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates ohs FI �O�, gGfo TABLE 4 -2 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY MOORPARK AND OLD TOWN MOORPARK TAXABLE SALES COMPARISON' Business Categories 1992 1997 1998 I Old Town I Citywide I Percent I Old Town Citywide I Percent I Old Town I Citywide I Percent Restaurants & Fast Food All Auto Related Types Retail - Including Grocery All Others Total 7,859 83,255 6,031 34,529 15,843 389,870 2,596 306,032 32,329 813,686 9.4% 17.5% 4.1% 0.8% 4.0% 8,630 170,856 5.1% 7,175 67,498 10.6% 37,101 692,407 5.4% 2,123 358,207 0.6% 55,029 1,288,968 4.3% 10,830 176,717 6.1% 7,785 44,854 17.4% 31,653 657,554 4.8% 2.498 336,817 0.7 % 52,766 1,215,942 4.3% Note: 1. Old Town Moorpark is defined as the businesses along Moorpark Avenue between Los Angeles Avenue and High Street and along High Street between Moorpark Avenue and Spring Street. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates 1 01 TABLE 4 -3 DOWNTOWN MOORPARK REVITALIZATION STUDY RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN SUB - REGIONAL MARKET AREA Moorpark 462,820 8.2% Simi Valley 1,570,212 27.9% Thousand Oaks 3,589,315 63.8% Total 5,622,347 100.0% Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 6.5% Neighborhood & Community 2.6% Neighborhood, Community & Big Box 6.0% Neighborhood, Community & Regional 5.1% Gross % of Estimated Leaseable Vacancy Center City Sq Ft Total Rate Types Moorpark 462,820 8.2% Simi Valley 1,570,212 27.9% Thousand Oaks 3,589,315 63.8% Total 5,622,347 100.0% Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 6.5% Neighborhood & Community 2.6% Neighborhood, Community & Big Box 6.0% Neighborhood, Community & Regional 5.1% 4.4 Retail Demand Projections Retail demand potential is driven from these existing and future sources: 1) households primarily within Moorpark with some visitor demand from the Sub - regional market area; 2) commuters to the Downtown Metrolink Station; and 3) private and public sector employment, particularly office related employment. Historically, residents within close proximity have supported retail demand in the Downtown Trade Area. Supportable retail square footage from households in the Downtown area has accounted for between 12 to almost 14 percent of total citywide supportable square footage, as shown in Table 4 -4. Projected supportable retail square footage Citywide in the year 2000 is about 969,100 square feet. For the period between 2000 and 2015, there is a projected increase in supportable demand of almost 410,000 retail square feet for the City of Moorpark. What is significant is that about 193,000 square feet of supportable square footage, or 47 percent of the total increment, can be attributed to housing development immediately north of or near the Downtown. Additional demand from the Moorpark Metrolink station commuters also provides support for retail development, particularly oriented to food and other convenience shopping and personal services. According to the City of Moorpark, the Moorpark station has an estimated 223 daily boardings which comprises 18 percent of commuter boarding from Oxnard to Union Station. Compared to the nine other stations, Moorpark has the second most boardings, behind only the Simi Valley station which accounts for 25 percent of commuter boardings. Auto traffic flows, which will bring more customers into the Downtown, are projected to increase by approximately 9,500 trips per day, or about 30 percent over the year 2000. This represents an increase to approximately 42,500 trips per day by 2010 from a year 2000 estimate of 33,000 daily trips. The City is- already facilitating this increased traffic flow into the Downtown through the planned widening and landscaping of Los Angeles Avenue that extends to the east from High Street; the planned extension of Spring Road northward that will eventually tie into Walnut Canyon Road; and the possible extension of High Street to the west as new residential development occurs north and west of the Downtown area. STREET TRIPS/DAY YEAR 2000 TRIPS /DAY YEAR 2010 TRIPS /DAY INCREASE: 2000 -2010 High St. 12,000 15,000 3,000 Spring St. 10,000 13,500 3,500 Moorpark Ave. 11,000 14,000 3,000 TOTAL 33,000 42,500 9,500 These significant trends create retailing opportunities for the Downtown, particularly if access and parking continue to be improved as well as safety and amenities to attract people to the area. 4.5 Employment Generated Retail Sales Job growth in the Downtown would itself bring an increase in retail demand. Table 4 -5 shows estimated spending and supportable retail area per new worker, based on national data. Each new worker adds demand for slightly over 14 square feet of retail activity, including restaurants, convenience and comparison goods. In the Downtown, restaurants, food and convenience shopping would be the most supportable establishments from new employees with less emphasis on comparison goods. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 23 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 000041 TABLE 4-4 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FEET 1990 857,400 Downtown Percent of Year Moorpark I Market Area I Moorpark 1990 857,400 117,000 .13.6% 2000 969,100 117,000 12.1% 2000 -2015 409,700 192,900 47.1% Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Robert Goldman Associates Table 4 -5 Retail Demand Generated by Employees Per Worker Annual Supportable Spending floor area at (1997 dollars) $2001sf Eating& Drinking Establishments $1,257 6.28 Lunches $1,105 5.52 Dinner/Drinks $152 0.76 Work Day Retail $1,298 6.49 Comparison Goods $1,036 5.18 Apparel & Accessories $552 2.76 Other Shoppers goods $483 2.42 Convenience Goods $262 1.31 Incidentals $124 0.62 Food Stuffs $97 0.48 Other $41 0.21 After Work Retail $283 1.42 Food & Groceries $170 0.85 Other $113 0.57 Total $2,838 14.19 Source: Spending per worker estimates derived from International Council of Shopping Centers, Office Worker Retail Spending, 1988. 4.6 Projected Increase in Square Footage in Downtown Trade Area Based on the projected retail demand for the City of Moorpark and the Downtown Market Area, as discussed earlier in Section 4.4, projected supportable square footage is allocated to the Specific Plan areas along High Street and Moorpark Avenue as shown in Table 4 -6. The projected increases in retail square footage range from a Low Scenario of about 43,860 square feet to a High Scenario of about 68,100 square feet. While this is less than the Specific Plan capacity, it represents a realistic projection range that may well be exceeded as successful development and Agency /City initiated actions occur. Additionally, a range of 20,000 to 40,000 square feet of professional and medical offices is projected. Again, this range might well be exceeded. The total increases in square footage would then range from about 63,860 to 108,100 square feet. This does not include any civic or cultural/institutional land uses that may be located within the Downtown specific plan area. The capture rate assumptions shown in Table 4 -6 were selected after reviewing historic taxable sales data for the Downtown. The Low Scenario uses capture rates by selected retail categories that generally represents 5 to 6 percentage points above current capture rates. The High Scenario assumes approximately an additional 50 to 60 percent increase over these rates, or generally in the range of 8 to 9 percent. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 25 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 0 0 0 O A 3 CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores /Supermarket Gas Food Service /Eating & Drinking Establishments Other Convenience Subtotal COMPARISON GOODS Vehicles (New & Used) Other Comparison Subtotal SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS Misc. Service Establishments Estimated Retail Sqft Estimated Office /Professional /Other Sqft Total Estimated Sqft Source: Stanley R. Hoffman& Associates, Inc. Robert E. Goldman Associates Table 4 -6 City of Moorpark Downtown Revitalization Study Projected Increase in Supportable Square Footage Projected Supportable Downtown Sqft from Moorpark Capture Estimated Residents: 2015' Rate -Low2 Sqft 183,700 5% 9,185 98,700 0% - 188,000 6% 11,280 161,300 5% 8,065 631,700 28,530 160,200 0% - 467,300 2% 9,346 627,500 9,346 119,600 5% 5,980 1,378,800 43,856 20,000 63,856 Downtown Capture Estimated Rate -High 2 Sqft. 8% 14,696 0% - 9% 16,920 8% 12,904 44,520 0% - 3% 14,019 14,019 8% 9,568 68,107 40,000 108,107 Note: (1) A population projection of 40,930 is based on VCOG forecasts, 1997 -2015, March 1999 (2) The low scenario assumes a capture rate similar to existing downtown taxable sales capture rates; the high scenario assumes a 50 percent over base rates. rt 4.7 Projected Increase in Taxable Sales in Downtown Trade Area With projected supportable retail square footage, estimated sales tax generation can be calculated, as shown in Table 4 -7. Taxable sales increases ranged from approximately $61,650 to $108,110. While these amounts are not comparable to the larger centers along Los Angeles Avenue, they nevertheless become important considerations as increased operations and maintenance costs are incurred in the Downtown area. The taxable sales per square foot assumptions are based on information from the Urban Land Institute's Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 1998, and are selected to represent stabilized rates over a 3 to 5 year time. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency page 27 Table 4 -7 City of Moorpark Downtown Revitalization Study . Projected Increased Sales Tax In Downtown Low Scenario' Taxable Sales Estimated Sq. Ft. per Sq. FtJYr. Sales Tax CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores /Supermarket 9,185 $125 $11,481 Gas 0 Food Service /Eating & Drinking Establishments 11,280 $200 $22,560 Other Convenience 8,065 $150 $12,098 Subtotal 28,530 COMPARISON GOODS Vehicles (New & Used) Other Comparison Subtotal SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS Misc. Service Establishments Estimated Retail Sqft Estimated Office /Professional /Other Sqft Total Source: Stanley R. Hoffman & Associates, Inc. Robert E. Goldman Associates M, 9,346 $150 $14,019 9,346 5,980 $25 $1,495 43,856 20,000 63,856 $61,653 High Scenario' Taxable Sales Estimated Sq. Ft. per Sq. FtJYr. Sales Tax Note: (1) The low scenario assumes an increased capture rate similar to existing downtown taxable sales capture rates; the high scenario assumes a 50 percent over base rates. (2) The sales per. square foot factors are estimated as stabilized rates over a 3 to 5 year time period. :M 14,696 $125 $18,370 16,920 $200 $33,840 12,904 $150 $19,356 44,520 14,019 $175 $24,533 14,019 9,568 $25 $2,392 68,107 40,000 108,107 $98,491 ..___ ........... .... _ ............ . ............_ ...__......._.... CHAPTERS DOWNTOWN MOORPARK DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS This chapter discusses development concepts and provides recommendations on potential land uses, tenant mix, a theme to consider for the Downtown area and the testing of development concepts through contacts with retailers, developers and Downtown Moorpark business people. These recommendations are based on an analysis of the current market trends in the Sub- region and on the demand analysis for development in the Downtown area. A recommended development strategy and a proposed implementation phasing and schedule are also included. 5.1 Potential Land Uses Overall Land Use Criteria The following are overall land use recommendations for the Downtown: 1. Downtown should be redeveloped with land uses that draw upon: — the large home ownership /family life styles of the Moorpark population; — the existing Downtown businesses to be retained; — the tight office market in Moorpark; and — the unique ambiance of Downtown's "Old Town" characteristics. 2. Land uses and any architectural/urban design theme that may be utilized should focus and reinforce, redevelopment and leasing efforts, but be flexible enough to be workable and allow for innovation by property developers. 3. The Agency should sell or ground lease its property on the south side of High Street to a qualified developer who will commit to implement whatever redevelopment plan, land uses and theme is adopted by the City Council/Redevelopment Agency. 4. Renovate and reuse Granary buildings around a retail, showroom and office theme. 5. Develop small office buildings in the approximate size and architectural style of the existing office buildings on High Street (if compatible with the adopted architectural design theme). 6. Develop vacant lot west of train station parking lot on High Street into "station- oriented" retail, but with general community appeal and access from High Street and the MetroLink station platform. 7. It is understood that the City is considering relocating certain public use(s) into the Downtown area. These land uses are consistent with our recommendations and should encourage further development from the private sector. Recommended Land Uses for Agency -Owned Property on High Street The City of Moorpark, through its Redevelopment Agency, has significant power to bring about the revitalization of Downtown through the redevelopment of the Agency - owned property on High Street. Possible land use redevelopment concepts for this property include retail, workshop / showroom space and offices. For purposes of analysis, the property is subdivided into four possible modules, as outlined below, each with a separate but related land use concept. Recommendations for the use of each module are based on the module's location relative to vehicular and pedestrian traffic, the nature of existing site improvements, proximity to other Downtown land uses, and the Downtown demand analysis. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 29 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 000047 A particular problem with the Agency -owned site is its configuration as a long narrow strip with a depth of only 100 feet. To test the physical site design feasibility of the land uses recommended, a hypothetical site layout for each module is provided. These layouts indicate, on an approximate basis, that the proposed land uses are feasible from a site configuration viewpoint. Rationale for the recommended land uses for each module are as follows: ■ The Granary contains a unique and potentially attractive collection of buildings. Its exterior tanks have the potential for becoming an artistic landmark for the Downtown. Accordingly, it can be adapted to artistic- or design- oriented tenants. ■ The vacant lot west of the Metrolink Station has the potential to serve commuters on the go because of its adjacency to the train station, and can provide convenience retailing for non - commuters as well. ■ The corner of Moorpark Avenue and High Street is the busiest intersection in the Downtown, and thus is an attractive site for neighborhood retail. Developing retail on this site presumes the current office use can be relocated. ■ Office space vacancy in .Moorpark is low, thus creating an opportunity for the development of an attractive use for the remaining area of the Agency -owned site. Office use is highly compatible with the rest of Downtown. Feasible site layouts for the recommended uses of each module are outlined in the table below. Site size and feasible improvement size, along with recommended uses and on -site parking is indicated. Possible site plan schematics for each module are provided in Figures 5 -1 through 5 -4. Module Improvement Size Use Parking A. The Granary (30,000 sq. ft.) 12,000 sq. ft. Retail / Showroom / Office 31 spaces B. Vacant lot west of Metro Station (15,000 sq. ft.) 8,000 sq. ft. Station- oriented retail 24 spaces C. Corner of Moorpark & High (30,000 sq. ft.) 12,000 sq. ft. Neighborhood retail 37 spaces D. Two sites east and west of Granary (15,000 sq. ft. each) 8,000 sq. ft. Two -story office buildings 64 spaces E. West of Module B (15,000 sq. ft.) 0 Parking lot 42 spaces Total (105,000 sq. ft.) 48,000s q. ft. n/a 198 spaces A. Re -use of the Granary Building Site. Approximately 12,000 square feet of retail / office / showroom space can be accommodated within the existing Granary site, forming a unique, authentic and artistic attraction and landmark for Downtown Moorpark. The Granary sits on approximately 300 feet of frontage on High Street. If the exterior granary tanks were left in place for artistic purposes, and the interior gutted, the Granary buildings could be reused for design / home improvement / arts and crafts tenants, such as described in Section 5.2, "Candidate Tenant Mix." The Granary site could be developed with the following components: • Station building is approximately 17' X 130', equaling 2,210 square feet. Can be used as one or two stores. It is particularly suited for arts and crafts, art gallery, gift, candlery, etc.; Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 30 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 000048 100 ft FIGURE 6 -1 MODULE A: GRANARY SITE HIGH STREET -7 k - 0 0 16pkg- "STATION" BUILDING i�� - ------ ------------ _------- -__- -- - 8 pkg — WAREHOUSE 140 ft. ANKS BUILDING SHED 130 ft. --- 300 ft - -- RAILROAD TRACKS SITE SIZE: 30,000 SQ FT (approx) 0 IMPROVEMENTS: 12,000 SQ FT 5 PARKING: 31 SPACES 0 SOURCE: RODINO ASSOCIATES 0 a� 37 ft. I 100 ft FIGURE 5 -2 MODULES: STATION - ORIENTED RETAIL COMMUTER STATION STEPS TO STATION R SITE SIZE: 15,000 SQ FT (approx) IMPROVEMENTS: 8,000 SQ FT R E ' d E T r T A i A 1 12 v 12 1 L p e p L k w k 4,000 sq ft g a g 4,000 sq ft Y -40ft, -20' -39- -20' -40ft- - -- -150 ft HIGH STREET SITE SIZE: 15,000 SQ FT (approx) IMPROVEMENTS: 8,000 SQ FT PARKING: 24 SPACES ' SOURCE: RODINO ASSOCIATES I I 100 ft I I FIGURE 5 -3 MODULE C: MOORPARK & HIGH STREET RAILROAD --- 300 ft - -- -- 37 pkg 80 ft 80 ft 80 ft I RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL 50 4,000 sq ft 4,000 sq ft 4,000 sq ft 1 30 ft 30 HIGH STREET SITE SIZE: 30,000 SO FT (approx) C) IMPROVEMENTS:, 12,000 SO FT 0 PARKING: 37 SPACES SOURCE: RODINO ASSOCIATES I M O O R P A R K A V E I 100 ft I SITE SIZE: 15,000 SQ FT IMPROVEMENTS: 8,000 SQ FT PARKING: 32 SPACES SOURCE: RODINO ASSOCIATES 0 FIGURE 5-4 MODULE D: OFFICE BUILDING SITES .,,_, -- 150 ft -- HIGH STREET - 16 pkg - d r 10 v pkg 80' 6 w 2 STORY pkg 120' y OFFICE 50' 8,000 sq ft 30' 20' -- 150 ft -- HIGH STREET • Rear granary building is approximately 37' X 130', equaling 4,810 square feet, and can be used, with proper structural improvement, for artistic metal fabrication, antiques, designer showroom /offices, architectural offices, etc.; • Metal shed, approximately 37' X 140', equaling 5,180 square feet, would probably need to be taken down and rebuilt. However, with proper ventilation and cooling/heating, or possibly with conversion to a canopy with a roof but open sides, it could be used as a Farmer's Market or for crafts activities. B. Commuter Train Station- Oriented Retail. The location is on the vacant lot west of the MetroLink parking lot on High Street. Site to be 150 feet along High Street and 100 feet deep, equaling 15,000 square feet. This site offers the opportunity to develop retail uses that serve the needs of commuters and local residents with such offerings as coffee shop/bar, newsstand, bagels, juice bar, drop -off dry cleaners, and convenience food. Total retail space is 8,000 square feet. Entry should be from High Street through conventional driveway, with steps at rear of site leading to and from the train platform. C. Neighborhood or Theme Retailing. A retail site can be created housing neighborhood retailers or retailers described in the proposed theme. This site at Moorpark and High Street is 300 feet by 100 feet, totaling 30,000 square feet, and could contain 12,000 square feet of retail space and 37 parking spaces. D. Office Buildings. Two two -story office buildings can be developed on two sites, each of 150 feet by 100 feet, providing 8,000 square feet of office space with 32 parking spaces apiece, similar to the office buildings on the north side of High Street. The buildings would be located on either side of the Granary site. E. Parking Lot. To the west of the Station - oriented retail site, or adjacent to the Granary site, a parking lot can be developed of 150 feet by 100 feet, equaling 15,000 square feet, providing approximately 42 parking spaces. Spring Road. Spring Road has a potentially significant role to play in the revitalization of Downtown. As a major thoroughfare leading to the Downtown area and to the new homes to be constructed north of Downtown, Spring Road can be developed to provide the City with an additional revenue source as well as add customers to Downtown, depending upon how it is developed. We assume that the U.S. Post Office will develop a distribution facility, with a possible future retail postal operation, on the northern end of the Spring Road site. The four major property types that can be developed on the remaining portion of the site include retail, office, light industrial and mixed use. 1. Retail. With Spring Road becoming an increasingly busy street, retail would be a workable choice for at least part of the site. Our judgment is that retailing on Spring Road would add more competition to the development of successful retailing on High Street, already suffering from competition of Los Angeles Avenue. For the benefit of Downtown revitalization, therefore, we recommend against the development of the Spring Road site as a primarily retail land use. 2. Office. Spring Road would be an attractive location for small office buildings in the 5,000 to 15,000 square foot range. The office market in Moorpark is very tight, and this demand could be served by a Spring Road office development. Office workers could provide additional lunchtime customers for restaurants on High Street, and there may be a small spillover to other retailers on the street. 3. Light Industrial. The extension of the light industrial uses behind Spring Road to Spring Road itself could work from both market and land use perspectives. Job opportunities would be a benefit, and some workers would be provided to the Downtown area, although not as many as with an office development. malt nuws a atamey K. nornnan Associates, Inc. page 35 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 000053 4. Mixed -Use Residential / Retail. It is our understanding that the owner of the Spring Road site has received an offer from a developer for a mixed -use residential/retail development on the remaining portion of the site south of the Post Office portion. We have not reviewed this proposed development or the developer's credentials. However, the concept of mixed residential/retail uses on Spring Road might provide a reasonable alternative, namely residences providing additional shoppers in the Downtown area and sales tax- producing retailers on the ground floor. 5.2 Candidate Tenant Mix To identify market- driven development opportunities we have generated a recommended tenant mix of retailers and office users that should work well in Downtown Moorpark. Tenant mix recommendations have been based on the following: 1. A market analysis indicating that Moorpark, compared to a community of its nature (suburban/rural) and size has: • a younger population than average; • a larger concentration of population in the ages for which expenditures on items related to children, household formation, furnishings and remodeling are higher than average; • a much higher incidence of home ownership than average; • more children per household than average; • substantially more affluence; and • a more diverse ethnic population mix. 2. Additional new housing to be developed to the north of Downtown; 3. Nature of existing Downtown Moorpark businesses; 4. Market trends for office space in Moorpark; 5. Commuter train station on High Street; 6. Ambiance of Downtown; 7. Responses of a sample of surveyed retailers. It is clear that the Downtown area should continue to serve the retail and office requirements of the surrounding residential community, commuters, and the city at large. This concept is consistent with the existing Downtown businesses. Additionally, restaurants and convenience shopping would continue to serve the employment base. These tenant types are identified below. Several major tenants that fall into this tenant mix have indicated a preliminary and conditional interest in Downtown Moorpark. We concur with the Specific Plan recommendation to adopt a physical theme, such as Old Town Moorpark, and complement it with the adoption of a retailing theme, such as an arts and crafts / home improvement concept, for the Downtown area, consistent with the overall land use principles outlined in 5.1 a. By creating a specialized and distinct retail location, the Downtown can draw upon a much wider consumer base of the Moorpark — Simi Valley — Thousand Oaks area, with the potential for creating a higher sales volume, attracting more substantial retailers, and thereby providing the City of Moorpark with greater sales tax revenues. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 36 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency Recommended User Types (Tenant Mix) The list of recommended user types for the Downtown area was developed by examining the results of the market analysis, the location of Downtown with respect to major vehicular arteries, existing land uses, and the size and configuration of Downtown land parcels. The identified spending patterns, site locations and restrictions strongly support the following uses: neighborhood retailing; convenience retailing, retailing related to home improvement/furnishing, merchandise for mothers and children, ethnic foods, some lower end retailing and some higher end retail offerings, small business facilities and services. Accordingly, the following neighborhood level and complementary user types should be encouraged. 1. Food: Bakery, Convenience market, Ethnic foods (unprepared and prepared), Farmer's Market. 2. Restaurants and Cafes (particularly with sidewalk/outdoor spaces): Bagels, Coffee houses /coffee bars, Juice bars, Yogurt and ice cream parlor, Breakfast and lunch restaurants, Dinner restaurants. 3. Apparel: Women's and children's clothing, casual clothing, western attire, and vintage clothing. 4. Other Retail: Specialty bookshops and used books, AudioNideo, Stationery store / office supplies / greeting cards (targeting the Spanish- speaking consumer niche). 5. Services: Dry cleaners (drop off/non- plant), Day care center; Beauty services (salon and supplies), Mail/parcel package services, One hour photo, Copy center, Travel agency, Small business office users. 6. Home Improvement / Home Furnishings / Arts and Crafts / Related Services: A theme recommended for consideration focuses on design, home improvement, and arts and crafts featuring the following user types: Architectural offices, Interior designer offices /showrooms, Antiques, Arts and drafts shops, Art galleries, Custom picture framing, Fabrics, Home improvement and furnishings — specialty retail (decorative items, stained glass, decorative tiles, ceiling fans), Garden related retail - outdoor and indoor, Specialty nursery, Designer metal fabrication, Gifts related to the home, Candlery, Home office retail, Pottery and pottery classes, Mexican and Native American crafts, Decorative lighting - indoor and outdoor. The above- recommended user types (or tenant mix) will build on and further reinforce the existing Downtown business mix. Existing Downtown Businesses Mix Downtown has an interesting mix of existing businesses that can all work together, as they are, in support of the neighborhood and theme concepts outlined above. These uses include: 1. Two attractive two -story office buildings that provide office space for local businesses and support the "western town" theme; 2. The Secret Garden, Cactus Patch, and several ethnic restaurants, some with outdoor tables, that provide breakfast, lunch and dinner; 3. Kahoots Feed with bails of hay stored that works well to reinforce an authentic, small town,-western country atmosphere; 4. Whitaker's Hardware, a local retail operation viewed as compatible with and supportive of the recommended retail theme; Katz. Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 37 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 000055 5. Rod's Welding, an in -shop metal fabricator that can create original, artistic home and garden furnishings; 6. A commuter train station and railroad that are a perfect combination of convenience and history, increasing the accessibility of Downtown for commuters and possible shoppers; 7. Locally -owned clothing and thrift shops that add to the small town feeling; It is anticipated that the Candidate Tenant Mix will work well together for several reasons: ■ Adding retail and office space, particularly centered around a retail theme, increases the drawing power of Downtown; • As more retail and office uses are developed Downtown, the perception held by some Moorpark residents that Downtown is unsafe will be dispelled; and • The adoption of a retail theme will create a synergism among certain groups of retailers that will mutually reinforce one another. For example, shoppers for decorative home furnishings are likely to be shoppers for hardware and fabrications. Mothers dropping off children at a day care center will become aware of the Downtown clothing stores offering affordable prices. A buyer of specialty or used books is likely to have lunch or coffee at the several small restaurants. All of the above are more likely to return for dinner with friends and a play at the Playhouse. Furthermore, if certain convenience retail uses and services are located in Downtown, they will not only serve the needs of local residents, but may discourage purchases outside Moorpark. For example, a drop - off dry cleaner co- located at the commuter train station serves the commuter's convenience who may be- time limited due to train schedules. A convenience market at that same commuter location may discourage purchases at the other end of the commute. Moorpark shoppers will benefit all Downtown businesses and capture sales taxes for the City. 5.3 Testing Development Concepts In order to test the development concepts and tenant mix outlined in 5.2, we contacted major retailers, developers with an interest in Downtown locations, and local Moorpark business people. Major Retailer Considerations We contacted the following retailers on a preliminary basis to ascertain their level of interest in a Downtown location (see Appendix D for a sample of contact fax letter). Several retailers indicated an interest conditioned upon on one or more of the following Agency and/or City actions: • Undertaking a retailer recruitment effort; • Securing a competent developer for the Agency's High Street property; • Providing appropriate financial incentives, if necessary; • Relocating public use(s) to the Downtown area; • Marketing Downtown to local and area consumers; and • Improving Downtown's physical appearance and increasing the perception of safety. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 38 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency Major Retailer Responses We contacted a total of eighteen major retailers. The purpose of making the contacts was not necessarily to recruit these businesses to the downtown, but to determine what were the locational factors they would consider to operate business in the area and ascertain their level of interest in locating there. Most retailers were contacted twice: first by faxing them information on Downtown Moorpark (see faxed material), and second by contacting them by phone. The selection of retailers was based on our knowledge that each might accept a Downtown storefront location and would conform to either a neighborhood retailer or the arts and crafts / home improvement theme. Of the nine respondents, four expressed the conditional interest outlined above. All four were neighborhood retailers, two of which could also be considered commuter station - oriented: Starbucks and Noah's Bagels. 1. Interested Retailers: Starbucks Coffee Togos Sandwich Shop Noah's Bagels Postal Annex 2. Retailers Not Interested: The Coffee Beanery Hancock Fabrics One Price Clothing Lucy's Laundrymart Medicine Shoppe 3. Non - Responding Retailers: Pier One Imports Pottery Barn Crate & Barrel Z- Gallerie Bodacious Buns Hallmark Cards Play It Again Sports Conroy's Flowers Hold Everything Real Estate Developers Nine real estate developers who specialize in retail or office /retail developments, and whom we knew for their interest in Downtown locations, were contacted. As with the retailers, information was faxed to them on Downtown Moorpark and they were called by phone. Four responded both by re- faxing our form and by discussing the Downtown area by phone. 1. Respondents: LaCagnina & Associates Urban Development Organization Malcolm Riley & Associates The Arthur Pearlman Company Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 39 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 2. No Interest: C.I.M. Group Soboroff Partners Pacific Realty Partners Ron Nash & Associates Newmark Merril Company Three of the four responding developers expressed interest in Downtown Moorpark, with Arthur Pearlman indicating he would not be interested. All four were familiar with Moorpark. Of the three interested, LaCagnina, a resident of Agoura Hills, was the most interested, having built in Santa Paula, leased and sold shopping centers throughout the Conejo Valley. 1. Developers' Conditions of Interest: As with retailers, the respondents conditioned their interest on the City undertaking the following actions: • selling or ground- leasing its site at attractive rates and terms; • providing financial incentives to retailers if necessary; • expending money to physically revitalize Downtown; • undertaking a vigorous marketing and recruitment effort; and • facilitating the process of obtaining entitlements, permits and approvals. 2. Development Concepts; All three expressed support for the neighborhood retailing and small office building concept. Guarded support was expressed for the arts and crafts / home improvement theme. The respondents believe that the concept could work with existing local retailers and small businesses recruited with incentives, but that major retailers of this nature were not likely to locate Downtown at this time. 3. Obstacles to Development: The three interested developers expressed two concerns: ■ given the existing lot configurations on High Street, properties that could be made available would be too small and narrow for development (reason for the Agency to assist in the development process by assembling developable parcels); and ■ that customer parking in the rear may require stores to have double entrances, one at the front and one at the rear, increasing costs for staffing and/or increasing loss from shoplifting. Downtown Business People Several interviews were conducted either in person or by phone with several Moorpark business people. All those interviewed expressed general interest for both the neighborhood retailing and the arts and crafts/ home improvement development concepts. Several also indicated that it was important for the Agency to convey its High .Street property to a developer, through a sale or ground lease and under attractive terms and conditions, to encourage its redevelopment. This action was perceived as key to triggering redevelopment on the remainder of High Street. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 40 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 0000S8 The broker for the major retail property on Los Angeles Avenue and Science Drive indicated that while conversations are on -going with major retailers such as Sam's Club, Loews Home Improvement, Sears Home Center, and Target, no anchor retailers have been secured, primarily due to the low population density and competition from similar retailing in Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks. The broker also felt that the arts and crafts / home improvement concept would do well in the High Street Granary buildings. He indicated that a similar concept is doing very well in Old Town Calabasas. Other business representatives indicated that the City should be more proactive in assisting developers and property owners in processing projects through the approval process. In addition, while they perceive the Downtown to be safe, they felt the City needed to assure consumers, business people and residents in general that Downtown is, in fact, a safe and secure place. 5.4 Recommended Development Strategies There are five key initial development strategies that are recommended for the revitalization of Downtown Moorpark: 1. Developing the Agency - owned property on High Street. (This action is the single more powerful strategy the City can pursue to jump -start the overall Downtown revitalization process.) 2. Relocating public use(s) to Downtown. 3. Recruiting local and national retailers. 4. Considering financial incentives, if necessary, for retailers and developers. 5. Marketing the Downtown to Moorpark and Conejo Valley consumers. Development of Agency -Owned High Street Property ■ Create and adopt a conceptual development program for Agency -owned High Street property. A development plan incorporating the recommended land uses should be created and adopted by the Agency for a developer to utilize as a guideline for the submission of a developer's proposal. ■ Adopt a financial feasibility development proforma as shown in Table 5 -1, including cost estimates for gutting the interior of the Granary building, and utilize this proforma as a guideline in negotiating terms with the selected developer. Agency must sell or ground -lease to developer at a price and terms sufficient to attract qualified developers to undertake the initial redevelopment. ■ Convey the property to a qualified developer through the RFQ/RFP process. This process should be used to select a developer whose experience and orientation are compatible with the local nature of the development anticipated on the High Street property. Negotiations can then proceed on the approval of a development plan and on the terms and conditions of the Agency's conveyance. Relocation of Public Use(s) to High Street ■ The City should consider the relocation of a public use(s) to High Street. Public facilities would add to the revitalization process and are compatible land uses given current and proposed Downtown businesses. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 41 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 000059 Table 5 -1 City of Moorpark Downtown Revitalization Study Moorpark Downtown Project Development Feasibility Development Component 1 STORY RETAIL 2 STORY OFFICE OFFICE S RETAIL TYPICAL SITE - SQ. FT. 30,000 15,000 15,000 RETAIL BLDG - SQ. FT. 12,000 8,000 8,000 COST TO CONSTRUCT / SQ. FT. $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $840,000 $560,000 $560,000 GROSS RETAIL RENTAL RATE / SQ. FT. $1.25 n/a $1.25 OFFICE RENTAL RATE / SQ. FT. n/a $1.10 $1.10 ESTIMATED EXPENSES / SQ. FT. -$0.15 -$0.15 -$0:15 NET RENTAL RATE $1.10 $0.95 $1.03 NET ANNUAL OPERATING INCOME $158,400 $91,200 $98,400 CAPITALIZATION RATE FOR DEVELOPER 14.00% 14.00% 14.00% ESTIMATED FEASIBLE DEVELOPMENT COS" $1,131,429 $651,429 $702,857 (Operating Income/Capitalization Rate) ESTIMATED FEASIBLE LAND COST $291,429 $91,429 $142,857 (Development Cost - Construction Cost) LAND COST / SQ. FT. $9.71 $6.10 $9.52 Source: Rodino Associates Recruit Local and National Retailers ■ Prepare an inventory of available retail property incorporating developed properties available for lease and those that can be developed. ■ Prepare a retailer marketing brochure incorporating the available retail space inventory and aspects of the Downtown area that would attract retailers. This brochure should include actions being taken by the City to revitalize Downtown and an indication of the Agency's willingness to provide financial incentives to desirable retailers wishing to locate in the area. • The City should utilize the marketing brochure in conjunction with an active retailer- recruiting program targeted on both local and national retailers. Retailers in the local region from the Conejo Valley to the San Fernando and Simi Valley, whose businesses are compatible with the concepts proposed in this report should be contacted about locating an additional store, or relocating their existing operation to the Downtown area. In addition, compatible national retail chains need to be contacted. Consider Financial Incentives for Retailers and Developers ■ Prepare financial incentive packages to encourage developers to acquire and develop sites within the City's adopted revitalization are, and to encourage retailers to locate their stores Downtown. The financial incentives could include, but not be limited to, land write -downs (which, as noted in Chapter 6, are necessary to "level the playing field ") favorable ground lease terms, low interest loans, grants to tenants for tenant improvements, property tax rebates, and utility cost subsidies. They type and extent of the incentive(s) to be provided to a particular developer and/or retailer should be structured on the specific needs of the proponent. For example, a land -cost write down to a developer may be considered to fill a financial gap in the project's budget (e.g., development costs are greater than projected development value). A low interest rate loan could be provided to a developer to partially finance the construction of the improvements (this low interest loan would reduce the developer's risk and enhance his/her credit with conventional lenders). Market Downtown to Moorpark and Conejo Valley Consumers ■ A marketing program aimed at consumers and business people in both Moorpark and the Conejo Valley is important to implement the revitalization process. Ultimately, consumers and business peoples' attitudes about Downtown will determine Downtown's success as a desirable place to shop, work, eat and be entertained. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 43 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 5.5 Implementation Priorities and Phasing It is anticipated that the program to revitalize Downtown will occur over a four to six years. The phasing outlined below addresses the estimated timetable for the five development strategies in Section 5.4. Activity Estimated Time Development of Agency's High Street Property 3 to 4 years 1. Create /adopt conceptual plan 0 to 6 months 2. Adopt financial feasibility proforma 0 to 6 months 3. Create financial incentives for developer 6 to 12 months 4. Recruit, select, negotiate with developer - 6 to 18 months 5. Convey property to developer 18 to 24 months 6. Completion of development 24 to 48 months Create retailer and developer financial incentives, non - Agency Downtown properties months 6 to 12 Recruit local and national retailers ongoing, starting month 12 Market Downtown to consumers ongoing, starting month 12 Relocate Public Uses to High Street 3 to 4 years Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 44 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 000062 CHAPTER 6 PUBLIC FISCAL AND FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF IMPLEMENTATION In Chapter 6 the public fiscal and financial aspects of certain development concepts are analyzed. First, the impact on the Agency -owned property only (Scenario One) is analyzed. Since this site cannot accommodate all of the projected near -term development potential the analysis further considers an additive scenario (Scenario Two) which utilizes all near -term development potential. An alternative development concept (Scenario Three), has been prepared should the problems associated with the Agency -owned site thwart development there. 6.1 Introduction This section analyzes the public fiscal and financial aspects of implementing the revitalization of Moorpark's Downtown. The analysis uses the development capacities and strategies developed in the other components of the study, namely the analysis of market demand for retail and office space and market - driven development prototypes. This analysis augments the other components with consideration of the physical portion(s) of the Downtown area. This is necessary because the amount of development forecast for Downtown (the short- term or lower end of the estimate) will not accommodate recycling of all the eligible properties in the area and there are significant problems associated with the Agency owned site. The "layout" scenarios are quantitatively analyzed -as to their net cost of implementation, "cost to the Agency" and qualitatively as to their effectiveness in creating a viable, attractive Downtown. This analysis does not address the issue of developer incentives (subsidies) since at this time it is not possible to determine the value of the developer's potential risk (actual or perceived). While the Specific Plan addressed a broader area than High Street, the capacity for new development must be concentrated in order to be effective, to establish the "sense of place that is so sorely lacking. It is the lack of this "sense of place" which was expressed uniformly by the community and businesses leaders who were interviewed as part of this effort. The total acreage along High Street equals approximately 9.7 acres. Of that area, the properties, which are candidates for recycling, involve approximately 5.9 acres. In developing the "layout" scenarios we did not consider disbursement or scattering of development along High Street. It is our opinion that scattered "infill" will not build the "critical mass" which would evidence a turn around. In fact, scattered development might thwart cohesive future development by precluding meaningful parcel assembly. 6.2 Creation of the Scenarios The "layout scenarios derive from the attempt to achieve three goals, all of which are desirable but difficult to achieve simultaneously, in the near term, given the retail and office development potential outlined in earlier sections of this report. These three goals include: • the elimination of offensive uses • the reinforcement of existing desirable uses • the highest leverage of public resources by using Agency -owned land Scenario One First, the development of the Agency owned site was analyzed. It would be the fastest and least contentious to accomplish should a developer be found who could overcome the site configuration Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 45 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 000OG3 problems and who was willing to accept the risk posed by the existing blighting conditions at the eastern end of High Streef. Scenario Two (Additive) Second, a scenario was analyzed which provided for full absorption of the near term retail and office potential development while still utilizing the Agency -owned site. This scenario would provide the greatest impact in the near term and would securely anchor the west end of High Street. Moreover, because of its development mass, this scenario, when completed, may trigger a redevelopment spillover toward the east end. It is the recommended Scenario. Scenario Three (Alternative) Third, a scenario was analyzed which would concentrate initial development on the east end of High Street, removing the most apparent blight. This alternative is proposed, should a developer not be identified who is willing to accept the aforementioned problems of the Agency -owned site. Were this scenario implemented, the Agency owned site might become more attractive to the development community because of the removal of substantial blighting influences on High Street. Any of the above scenarios would be successfully complemented by public development in the Downtown. In fact, under all scenarios, public development would help to assure the success of private efforts by removing some of the existing blighting conditions, complementing private- sector efforts in creating a new "sense of place ", and providing for more activity in the Downtown. The commitment to public development may even be a prerequisite to securing developer interest. 6.3 Scenario Assumptions While the recommended development of the Agency site, as discussed in Section 5.4, may be the easiest and most financially feasible to accomplish in the near term, it is not without risk and it does not use up all of the development potential, even the short term potential. Additionally, it only addresses one of the three goals identified above and may not be achievable without additional development to change the character of the Downtown. Therefore, in order to address the other goals we have augmented the plan to reflect complete absorption of the near -term development potential. In order to construct the scenarios, the modules described in Section 5.1 were applied to additional sites. Land acquisition costs of $14 per square foot were used following discussions with local appraisers and real estate brokers. While this amount may appear high, it incorporates improvement costs and administrative costs necessary to carry out the project(s) with the exception of the site which is included at $800,000. This is the amount identified by the Agency as the actual cost of acquiring the Agency owned site. Relocation costs were assumed at $25,000 for owner occupied residential units, $4,000 for tenant occupied residential units, and $35,000 for businesses. Based on the distribution of these categories among properties comprising the Downtown, we have used a "blended" relocation cost per development module. Relocations were estimated during a walking survey — i.e., no residents or businesses were directly contacted. Demolition costs were included at $10,000 per development site. To the cost of site assembly we have added a budget for the installation of a portion of the public improvements recommended in the Specific Plan for the Downtown. Each scenario assumes that improvements would be installed at a cost equal to approximately one - quarter of the costs of improvements recommended in the Plan. Two major categories of resources are anticipated to offset the cost of implementing the development. They are land sale proceeds from the sale of development sites and financing proceeds resulting from capitalization of the tax increment generated by the new development. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 46 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 000064 Land sale proceeds are based on Table 5 -1 and reflect the amount that a developer can afford to pay while still maintaining a viable development. The land sale proceeds for each of the modules comprising a development scenario are aggregated to determine land price per scenario. Financing analyses have been prepared for each scenario to determine the net public cost of its implementation. The only public resource included in the analyses is tax increment as it is the only significant net revenue to be generated. Without public - sector participation, the majority of the proposed retail development would probably occur elsewhere in the City. Therefore, there would be no significant net gain of sales tax revenue resulting from the Downtown development. According to the projections shown previously in Table 4 -7, sales tax revenues could range from about $62,000 to almost $100,000 per year. Although the majority of these sales may be shifted from other locations in Moorpark, the projected level of sales is not likely to adversely affect businesses elsewhere in the city. For the purpose of determining financing proceeds, the net value of new development is computed. Improvement value is assumed to equal the construction costs included in the proformas shown on Table 5 -1 and land value is assumed to equal land sale proceeds. From this total value, we have subtracted an amount equal to seventy -five percent of acquisition cost. This is intended as the offset resulting from the removal of existing value on the sites. The resulting net value is multiplied times a tax rate of 1 percent to determine net new revenue. Eighty percent of these revenues (i.e., the non - housing portion) are used to determine financing proceeds. Revenues are capitalized at a rate of .096 representing twenty -five year financing at a rate of 8.3 percent. Because the population to support the high end development potential will not be available for several years, we have use the low end estimate in all cases. 6.4 Scenario Descriptions The first scenario looks at redeveloping the Agency owned property at the southwest end of High Street, using a portion of the low end of the absorption range. This site consists of approximately 100,000 square feet and is currently occupied by the granary buildings, La Playita restaurant and an office building. Development on this site would include 32,000 square feet of retail uses, 8,000 square feet of office and a mixed use retail and office of 8,000 square feet for a total of 48,000 square feet. Assuming financing of the revenue stream, implementation of this scenario (even with a payment which recoups the Agency's original cost to acquire) results in a net gain of $177,150. Given the fact that this will most likely be a pioneering effort, this positive balance may be spent in developer incentives. In subsequent scenarios, it is used to acquire additional sites. The second scenario looks at redeveloping the west end of High Street, both south and north sides, approximately between Magnolia Street and Moorpark Avenue, using the low end of the absorption range. The recyclable parcels consist, primarily, of the south side Agency owned land as well as some development on the north side of the street and equal approximately 150,000 square feet. Implementation of this scenario would result in a net cost to the Agency of about $176,546. The third scenario looks at redeveloping the east end of High Street, roughly from Magnolia Street to Spring Road, using the low end of the range for the projected absorption rates. The recyclable parcels located there equal approximately 150,000 square feet. The parcels are located on both the south and north sides of the street. Implementation of this scenario would result in a net cost to the Agency of $1,123,421. The attached Tables (6 -1, 6 -2, and 6 -3) summarize the fiscal and financial impacts of each of the three scenarios. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 47 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 0 0 6.5 ScenariQ_Assessments Scenario One The first scenario, while the most affordable, is difficult because no changes will have been made to the surrounding area and the worst blight will remain. The remaining blight will serve as a disincentive to the implementation of the development and to the use of the development were it realized. The amount of public subsidy will depend upon the specific perception of the developer regarding risk. Yet, development on this site would enable the fastest realization of new private development in the Downtown and with the recycling and sensitive reuse of the Granary Building, may provide some of the "sense of place" that is commonly identified as missing. Scenario Two The second scenario concentrates efforts on the west end of High Street both the north and south sides. Implementation of this scenario would provide the most stable anchor albeit only to the west side of High Street. Only the perception of lack of safety and security could jeopardize the success of development here. Nonetheless, it provides the best formula for success absent any public development to complement private efforts because most of the neighborhood assets, architectural/historically significant buildings and existing desirable uses are located here as well as the single largest and most affordable parcel of vacant land. Therefore, the west end of High Street offers the greatest opportunity to create a "sense of place ". Additionally, the west end can be easily integrated with the Moorpark Avenue commercial corridor, thus, increasing the chances for success since it offers relatively easy access, for both vehicular and pedestrian_ to and from the residential areas south of Downtown. This scenario also increases the potential for capitalizing on the commuter population by providing them with easy access to convenience services in a pleasant environment. Scenario Three The third scenario contemplates the development of a portion of the east end of High Street, the more distressed area of Downtown subject to both physical and economic blighting conditions. One of the concerns that was expressed repeatedly during interviews with community and business members was the issue of the perception by many of Downtown as an unsafe area (although those interviewed did not personally believe this to be the case). Singled out as the principal location from which the concerns were arising was an area at the east end of High Street where many day laborers congregate. Unfortunately, while blight removal and some easing of security concerns could result from redeveloping the east end, the west end could continue to languish. New retail space at the east end of town might worsen the situation of empty stores on the west end of High Street. While this scenario would greatly improve the image of Downtown, it does not have the potential by itself to create a "sense of place" around which the new Downtown could be built. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency page 48 OO®GG Table 6 -1 City of Moorpark DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY Public Fiscal and Financial Analysis FISCAL PARAMETERS FOR DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS Scenario 1 - Agency -Owned Parcels Retail Office Combined One -story Two -story Two -story Included Modules (1) 2 1 2 Retail Area 24,000 8,000 Office Area 8,000 8,000 Land Required 60,000 15,000 30,000 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS Site Assembly Costs Acquisition N/A N/A N/A Relocation N/A N/A N/A Demo /Rehab N/A N/A N/A Public Improvement Budget TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COSTS RESOURCES Land Sale Proceeds 582,600 91,500 292,500 Financing Proceeds Value Added Land Value 582,600 91,500 292,500 Improvements 1,680,000 560,000 1,120,000 Total Value 2,262,600 651,500 1,412,500 Less: Existing Value 0 0 0 Net Value Added 2,262,600 651,500 1,412,500 Gross Revenue 22,626 6,515 14,125 Less: Housing 4,525 1,303 2,825 Net Revenue 18,101 5,212 11,300 Financing Proceeds 188,550 54,292 117,708 TOTAL RESOURCES 771,150 145,792 410,208 NET (COST) GAIN FROM IMPLEMENTATION Total 32,000 16,000 105,000 800,000 140,000 50,000 160,000 966,600 3,360,000 4,326,600 0 4,326,600 (1) Development clusters as discussed in Chapter 5 and shown on Table 5 -1. 43,266 8,653 34,613 360,550 1,150,000 1,327,150 177,150 Table 6 -2 210,000 City of Moorpark 63,000 0 DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY 800,000 Public Fiscal and Financial Analysis 140,000 FISCAL PARAMETERS FOR DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS 50,000 Scenario 2 - Agency -Owned Parcels and Additional West End Parcels Added Area TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COSTS Agency Retail Office Combined Owned One -story Two -story Two -story Included Modules (1) (2) 1 0 1 Retail Area 32,000 12,000 4,000 Office Area 16,000 0 4,000 Land Required 105,000 30,000 0 15,000 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS 210,000 Site Assembly Costs 63,000 0 Acquisition 800,000 Relocation 140,000 Demo /Rehab 50,000 Public Improvement Budget 160,000 TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COSTS RESOURCES 548,750 Land Sale Proceeds 966,600 Financing Proceeds 1,633 Value Added 1,098 Land Value 966,600 Improvements 3,360,000 Total Value 4,326,600 Less: Existing Value 0 Net Value Added 4,326,600 Gross Revenue 43,266 Less: Housing 8,653 Net Revenue 34,613 Financing Proceeds 360,550 TOTAL RESOURCES 1,327,150 NET (COST) GAIN FROM IMPLEMENTATION Total 16,000 4,000 45,000 420,000 0 210,000 1,430,000 63,000 0 32,000 235,000 10,000 0 10,000 70,000 80,000 0 80,000 320,000 291,300 0 146,250 1,404,150 291,300 0 146,250 840,000 0 560,000 1,131,300 0 706,250 315,000 0 157,500 816,300 0 548,750 8,163 0 5,488 1,633 0 1,098 6,530 0 4,390 68,025 0 45,729 359,325 0 191,979 (1) Development clusters as discussed in Chapter 5 and shown on Table 5 -1. (2) Modules as shown Table 7 -2. 1,404,150 4,760,000 6,164,150 472,500 5,691,650 56,917 11,383 45,533 474,304 2,055,000 1,878,454 (176,546) = Table 6 -3 91,500 Site Assembly Costs 1,404,150 City of Moorpark K N/A Relocation N/A DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY N/A Public Improvement Budget 6,164,150 Public Fiscal and Financial Analysis 157,500 RESOURCES 1,575,000 FISCAL PARAMETERS FOR DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS N/A Scenario 3 - East End of High Street Development Sites Value Added 4,940 Land Value N/A Added Area N/A Agency Retail Office Combined Owned One -story Two -story Two -story Included Modules (1) 3 1 3 Retail Area N/A 36,000 TOTAL RESOURCES 12,000 Office Area N/A (1,123,421) 8,000 12,000 Land Required N/A 90,000 15,000 45,000- IMPLEMENTATION COSTS 91,500 Site Assembly Costs 1,404,150 Acquisition N/A Relocation N/A Demo /Rehab N/A Public Improvement Budget 6,164,150 TOTAL IMPLEMENTATION COSTS 157,500 RESOURCES 1,575,000 Land Sale Proceeds N/A Financing Proceeds 4,589,150 Value Added 4,940 Land Value N/A Improvements N/A Total Value N/A Less: Existing Value N/A Net Value Added N/A Gross Revenue N/A Less: Housing N/A Net Revenue N/A Financing Proceeds N/A TOTAL RESOURCES N/A NET (COST) GAIN FROM IMPLEMENTATION Total 48,000 20,000 150,000 1,260,000 210,000 630,000 2,100,000 252,000 42,000 126,000 420,000 30,000 10,000 30,000 70,000 320,000 2,910,000 873,900 91,500 438,750 1,404,150 873,900 91,500 438,750 1,404,150 2,520,000 560,000 1,680,000 4,760,000 3,393,900 651,500 2,118,750 6,164,150 945,000 157,500 472,500 1,575,000 2,448,900 494,000 1,646,250 4,589,150 24,489 4,940 16,463 45,892 4,898 988 3,293 9,178 19,591 3,952 13,170 36,713 204,075 41,167 137,188 382,429 1,077,975 132,667 575,938 1,786,579 (1,123,421) (1) Development clusters as discussed in Chapter 5 and shown on Table 5 -1. 6.6 Development Incentives The Agency has implementation costs, which exceed resources, under all three development Scenarios. Table 64 illustrates the amount the Agency will have to absorb based on the developer paying market rate for the land (i.e. the land price that can be supported given current rent levels). No subsidies or incentives are considered at this time. The analysis shows the gap between costs and resources as a combination of the dedication of borrowing capacity and a net cost to implement the development. The combination of these two elements equals the cost to the Agency absent considerations of risk. Table 6-4 City of Moorpark Downtown Revitalization Study Public Implementation Costs Scenario One Scenario Two Scenario Three Financing Proceeds (360,550) (474,304) (382,429) Net Gain / (Cost) 177,150 (176,546) (1,123,421) Total Cost (183,400) (650,850) (1,505,910) At the end of the process of acquiring, preparing and disposing of sites to a developer, what will have been accomplished is a "leveling of the playing field." If more resources are required to encourage the developer to build, then a developer subsidy or incentive will have to be provided. Development incentives equate to money saved by a developer, either in actual dollars or in time which results in dollar savings. The incentives are meant to overcome issues a developer might be facing which otherwise make the development actually or perceptually infeasible. The development will produce a certain return on investment for the developer depending on the costs incurred to build (including financing costs and equity in the development) and the income from the project. We have assumed certain rent levels based on local market information and we have assumed certain construction costs. If the difference between the cost and the return is not sufficient, a developer will not build until the expected return he /she needs is achieved. A development incentive assists the developer to achieve the expected return, while reducing risk exposure. Perception of risk can affect a developer's decision on whether to proceed with a specific project. For example, on High Street, a developer might believe that the blight on the east end of the street may negatively affect new development. Therefore, initial rent -up may take longer or vacancies may last longer when they occur. A developer may believe that he /she is entitled to a higher return because of the increased risk which they are taking. Or the developer may want to see public investment in the form of a new public facility in the downtown so that his/her development will have an additional anchor in terms of attraction of customers to the area and/or the removal of blighting influences. The developer incentives most commonly used by redevelopment agencies are land cost writedown and off -site improvement cost reduction. If rent levels and construction costs are fixed, only certain elements can change. One of these elements is the cost of the land. Land writedown is an eligible expenditure of redevelopment funds necessary to encourage developers to participate in projects which might otherwise not be feasible. Another eligible expenditure of redevelopment funds is to reduce certain development ­Z" w11- a ocamey n. norrman Associates, Inc. Downtown Revitalization Study page 52 City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 000070 costs associated with off -site improvements. If these costs are paid by an Agency, the total development cost decreases and' the developer's anticipated return on investment is improved. It is difficult to quantify the perception of risk or the cost a developer may attach to it. This perception may influence the developer's decision. Despite payment of market rate for the land, a subsidy or incentive may also be required. The amount of that subsidy or incentive is impossible to determine at this time. Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 53 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 000071 CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION OF DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STRATEGIES Techniques for implementing the revitalization strategies described in this Study, are outlined in this chapter. These techniques will focus on the development of the Agency -owned site or sites to be assembled in the Downtown, the recruitment of qualified developers, and the promotion of Downtown among potential users /consumers. 7.1. Creation of a Development Package The first step in the developer recruitment effort should be the preparation of a Development Package describing all the basic information needed by an interested developer to determine project feasibility, risk exposure, return on investment, and identifying the components of an acceptable developer proposal. The package should minimally contain the following information: 1. Description of the City's overall Downtown revitalization plan, including: a. Architectural design theme(s); b. Identification of architecturally /historically significant buildings including the Granary site; c. Desired land uses (tenant mix); d. Description of the City's revitalization programs /projects, such as traffic circulation and parking improvements, street landscape, signage, etc.; 2. Site information at the parcel map level for the Agency -owned site as well as for all privately owned properties deemed to be available for development. In addition to the information available through the assessor's parcel map, the following data should be compiled and included:' a. Description of improvements and uses on each parcel; b. Summary of current tenants, terms of leases, locations, names, addresses and phone numbers of proprietors, current income /expense data on leases; c. Description of current property prices and ground lease terms and conditions. d. Site- specific environmental information, if available; 3. Market analysis as contained in this report; 4. List of interested retailers from both local region and major chains (if one has been compiled by staff through direct solicitation); 5. Summary of the City's land use requirements and development standards affecting the Downtown properties; 6. Incentives to developers to be provided by the City, such as: a. Fast -track permit processing (Entitlement processing description, simplified, with an assignment of a single "point" person on the City's staff to shepherd the development through the process); Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 54 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 000072 b. Statementwregarding Agency willingness to consider the provision of financing incentives; 7. Explanation of bidding and developer selection process and criteria. The developer's analysis of the development opportunity presented in the package will consider four major items. First, the developer will want to know if a market exists and whether the Agency prepared any marketing studies. Second, they will want to know the physical constraints of the site 'in order to determine if the site is large enough, if the site has good access and visibility and whether there are any unusual site problems from the standpoint of building placement or access. Third, they will want to determine if the site is economically feasible to develop and whether the Agency will provide incentives, if necessary. Finally, they will want to know that there is political commitment to carry through with the project - that there is widespread support that is unlikely to be affected by elections and staff changes. 7.2 Developer Recruitment (Request for Qualifications — RFQ) We recommend that the Agency use the RFQ/RFP sequence process. We recommend this approach in this case for several reasons. Downtown sites are not the traditional large acreage sites common to Los Angeles Avenue; thus, they need greater innovation and imagination to develop properly. The Request for Proposals (RFP) process requires that developers spend a fair amount of time and money on coming up with a concept in their proposal that initially may not work for a variety of reasons, and, for which, they may not be selected. Knowing this, many developers will avoid bidding in such a process. It is better for the City to preselect two or three qualified developers through the RFQ process, and then spend some time with them discussing development concepts and economics. Initial developer recruitment can be accomplished in several ways. One is through the publication of the - RFQ in the conventional manner - through newspapers of general circulation, and through the real estate trade magazines. Another recruitment technique is through an expanded version of the approach taken in this study. Developers known for their interest in downtown development should be contacted directly. The list provided in this report can be significantly expanded by contacting redevelopment agencies throughout Southern California for the names of developers that have been successful in downtown developments, and then contacting those developers directly. 7.3 Developer and Development Selection (Request for Proposals — RFP) After securing a pool of responsible and interested developers through the RFQ process, the Agency would solicit focused RFPs from this pool. This process not only screens out weak proponents but also provides interested developers with a certain level of assurance that their development proposal will be seriously considered. By adopting this process, the City will encourage the developers' investment of time and creativity, and, in the end, get a more desirable product. It is the beginning of the forging of the public /private partnership that will achieve the Agency's redevelopment goals and developer's reasonable return on investment. Selection should be based on a combination of the developer's track record in similar situations, the quality of the concept proposed in creating a revitalized downtown, the price and terms which the developer agrees to, and the bottom line delivery of property tax and sales tax dollars. Many developers and developments can produce high sales tax volumes, but development concepts must be viewed in terms of their longer term availability to recreate Downtown as a special place, one that is distinct from the traditional shopping malls that proliferate the Southern California landscape. In the end, it will be this "sense of place" that will support retail sales and provide tax dollars to the City. 7.4 Marketing to Consumers Finally, the City can aid in the implementation of its downtown revitalization plans by marketing the downtown area to local and sub - regional consumers — those in Moorpark, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 55 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 0000713 and the West San Fernando Valley. As the revitalization process moves from the planning stage to the actualization phase, the City should promote existing and new retailers, restaurants, and the Playhouse while emphasizing the Downtown's unique ambiance. This can be accomplished through a variety of means including ads and articles in local newspapers, special "All Downtown Sales" days, holding special events in the Downtown, supporting the formation of a merchants' association and explaining the Downtown's revitalization progress to the public at large. Katz Hollla & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 56 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency APPENDIX A Retail Inventories for the Cities of Moorpark, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 57 Downtown Revitalization Study 000075 City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency Table A -1 City of Moorpark Downtown Revitalization Study Retail Center Inventory — Moorpark Name Year Type Anchors Anchor Total Vacancy Vacancy Leasing Agency Phone Number GLA GLA s ft Rate % Gateway Plaza at Moorpark 19W Neighborhood N/A N/A 30,000 - 0.0% To pa Man ement Company 310 - 203 -9199 SWC Spring Rd. & Los Angeles Ave. Paul Glen er Moorpark Plaza 1987 Neighborhood Wood Ranch BBQ 4,500 54,071 3,940 7.3% Mash Associates 805 -523 -7160 Los Angeles Ave. & Moorpark Rd. Lamppost Pizza 3,225 Unnamed Shopping Center 1990 Neighborhood Two Gus from Italy N/A 1 30,000 510 1.7% To pa Management Company 310 - 203 -9199 Los Angeles Ave. & Spring Rd. I I Linda Veren in Moorpark Shopping Center 1993 Community Kmart N/A 221,820 4,436 2.0% Ventura Pacific Capital Group 805 - 987 -6921 Mission Bell Center Alberson's Neno S oudello Los Angeles Ave. & Park Ln. Moorpark Cinema -6 Mountain Meadows Plaza N/ Neighborhood Vons 49,808 78,215 1,382 1.8% N/A N/A Sav-on 16,853 Varsity Plaza N/ Neighborhood Grotta Azzura 2,300 20,704 3,280 15.8% N/A N/A Princeton Ave. Preschool 2,800 Moorpark Town Center 1984 Community Hughes Market N/A 126,000 24,318 19.39% N/A N/A Los Angeles & Moorpark Aves. U.S. Post Office N/A 10,000 space will soon go out of business N/A Total GLA 560,810 37,866 6.8% Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 1997 Shopping Center Directory m� Table A -2 City of Moorpark Downtown Revitalization Study Retail Center Inventory -- Simi Valley Name Year Type Anchors Anchor Total Vacancy Vacancy Leasing Agency Phone Number GLA GLA s ft Rate °/ Home Club Plaza 1991 Community Edwards Theatre 29,888 220,000 N/A N/A Crossroads Development 310.566 -8800 First & Los Angeles Home Club 115,459 Tom Robinson 145,347 Kmart Plaza Shopping Center 1976 Community Kmart 107,267 135,000 2,025 1.5% Troop Commercial Real Estate 605.582 -1222 Los Angeles-Madera & Tierra'ada Vic Yates Mountain Gate Plaza 1964 Community Blg_5_Sporting Goods 9,824 284,000 19,880 7.0% Wilson Commercial Real Estate 81890 5995 E. Los Angeles Ave. & First St. Edwards Theatre 21,696 Chris Wilson McMahan's Furniture 18,628 Michaels N/A TJ Maxa N/A Thrifty Drug N/A 50,148 Simi Valley Plaza/Home Base Center 1991 Community Home Club 111,395 214,000 - 0.0% Crossroads Development 310-556 48800 1357 Los Angeles Ave. Tom Murrin Sinaloa Plaza 1979 Community Vons Supermarket 47,489 123,037 5,045 4.1% Diversified Shopping Centers 714Q57 -2651 SEC Los Angeles & Sinaloa Lisa Barkeme er Sycamore Plaza 1982 Community Country Store 1,486 168,855 3,039 1.8% R.L. Pratt & Associates 310-577-1414 SECSycamore & Hubbard St. Mann Theatres 21,696 Millers Outpost 15,968 Staples Office Supply 24,766 63,918 Sycamore Square 1977 Community Me n's 74,499 142,320 7,970 5.6% Lowe Enterprises Commercial Group 310 -207 -1132 Cochran& Sycamore Osco Drug 24,768 Carlton Maese Ross Dress For Less 26,816 126,083 Tao Plaza 1969 Community Thrifty Drug N/A 147,000 3,528 2.4% Westwood Financial Corp. 310- 8205443 2196 -2358 Tapo Vons Supermarket N/A Costco 1996 Community Costco Warehouse N/A 136,000 - 0.0% Total GLAD 1,570,212 41,487 2.6% Note 1. A Wal -Mart anchored center of about 330,000 square feet at Madera Road south of the Simi Valley Freeway is currently leasing up. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 1997 Shopping Center Directory er Table A -3 City of Moorpark Downtown Revitalization Study Retail Center Inventory -- Thousand Oaks Name Year Type Anchors Anchor Total Vacancy Vacancy Leasing Agency Phone Number GLA GLA (sgft) Rate ( %) Kmart Center N/A Community Kmart N/A 166,360 0.0% Kmart International Headquarters 810 - 643 -1000 325 Hampshire Rd. Greg Smith North Oaks Plaza N/A Community N/A N/A 33,000 - 0.0% Arlene Howard Realty 818- 704 -0401 950 Avenida De Los Arboles North Ranch Mall 1977 CommunR Ralph's Grocery 43,393 184,000 0.0% DSB Properties, Inc. 805 - 374 -1700 Westlake & Thousand Oaks Blvd. Thrifty Drug 24,768 David Black Trader Joe's 8,800 76,961 Northranch Plaza 1991 Community Pavilions Market N/A 120,440 26,497 22.0% IDM Corporation 562 -498 -0141 SWC Kanan & Lindero Canyon Rds. Tim Matz Oakbrook Center 1980 Community Vons Supermarket 31,936 100,000 3,000 3.0% N/A N/A De Los Arboles & Erbes Rd. Oakbrook Plaza SEC Hwy. 23 & Avenida de Los Arboles 1980 Community Albertson's N/A 120,000 N/I CB Commercial Real Estate Group, Inc Brian McAndrews 805 - 654 -6210 Park Oaks Sho pping Center 1960 Community Lions Oil Co 15,466 138,392 2,768 2.0% J.G. Management 818- 981 -1070 1736 N. Moorpark Rd. McDonald's 9,824 Greg Greenstein Melody Theatre 10,336 Vons Supermarket 30,920 66,546 Stagecoach Plaza Newbury Park Rd. 1989 I Communty in & Out Bur er N/A 200,000 30,000 15.0% CB Commercial Real Estate Group, Inc Sheldon Pfeifer 805 -988 -1200 Thousand Oaks Town Center Thousand Oaks Blvd. & Westlake Blvd. 1996 Community Barnes & Noble Superstore Bristol Farms N/A N/A 200,000 N// Caruso Property Management, Inc Tasha Reeder 310. 458 -0202 Mann Theatres N/A Towne Center SEC Westlake & Thousand Oaks Blvd. 1996 Community Camp Disney Seedy Printing 19,648 N/A 200,000 N// AFC Commercial Real Estate Group James Ashton 805 - 371 -8484 Unnamed Shopping Center 1997 Community NIA N/A 118,000 N9 Cohan Development 818 -501 -5500 SWC Reino Rd. & Kimber Dr. Albert Cohan Village Square Shopping Center 1965 Community Ross Dress For Less 26,816 118,000 12,980 11.0% PCF- Thousand Oaks 714 - 756 -1022 Moorpark Rd. & Brazil St. John C. Pentz Westlake Plaza 1974 Community Long's Drugs 30,920 141,056 16,927 12.0% La Cagnina/Riley Associates, Inc 818- 788 -8080 Westlake Blvd. & Agoura Total Woman Spa 10,858 Elizabeth Cangelosi 41,778 Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 1997 Shopping Center Directory Table A -3 City of Moorpark Downtown Revitalization Study Retail Center Inventory -- Thousand Oaks Janss Marketplace Moorpark Rd. & Hiilcrest Dr. 1960 Regional Best Products Linens 'N Things 70,403 39,297 666,000 99,900 15.0% CB Commercial Real Estate Group, Inc David Rush 818- 907 -4641 Marshalls 28,864 Me n's N/A Sears 61,825 Thrifty Drug 21,696 Toys'R Us 37,273 Tuesday Morning 5,431 264,789 The Oaks U.S. 101 & L nn Rd. & Hillcrest Dr. 1978 Super Re tonal JC Penney Macs Robinson's -May 1 Robinson's -May II 132,646 140,806 127,747 1,084,087 21,681 2.0 °� Hahn Property Management Corp. The Oaks Sho ping Center, LP 619 - 546 -3222 805- 495 -4628 140,806 542,005 Total GLA 3,589,315 213,753 6.0 °�6 0 Source; Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. 1997 Shopping Center Directory APPENDIX B Retail Demand Projections and Supportable Square Feet: 1990 through 2015 Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Downtown Revitalization Study page 62 City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 000080 TABLE B -1 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY ESTIMATED PURCHASES AND FLOOR AREA SUPPORTABLE BY MARKET AREA RESIDENTS, 1990 CONVENIENCE GOODS Supportable Food Stores/Supermarkets Sales Per I Total I Floor Area Taxable Retail Goods Categ Sq. Ft. Sales . Ft. . Sales CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores/Supermarkets $350 $6,529,600 18,700 $2,024,200 Gasoline Service Stations $200 $1,822,900 9,100 $1,822,900 Food Service /Eating & Drinking Establishments $200 $2,979,600 14,900 $2,979,600 Other Convenience $200 $2,943,300 14.700 $2,796,100 Subtotal $14,275,400 57,400 $9,622,800 COMPARISON GOODS Vehicles (New & Used) $300 $3,684,200 12,300 $3,684,200 Other Comparison $150 $5,621,200 37,500 $5,621,200 Subtotal $9,305,400 49,800 $9,305,400 SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS Misc. Service Establishments $150 $1,467,000 91800 Total 117,000 Source: Robert E. Goldman and Associates Notes: Other Convenience includes video rental stores, drugstores, book stores, variety stores, liquor stores, auto parts stores Gasoline Service Stations includes only auto related products; excludes mini -marts Misc. Service Establishments includes cleaners, barbers, beauty parlors,auto repair shops, theaters Other Comparison includes Apparel, Nome Furnishings & Improvements, Consumer Electronics (TV's, Radios, Stereos, home Computers, etc.) and Toys & Sporting Goods TABLE B -2 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY ESTIMATED PURCHASES AND FLOOR AREA SUPPORTABLE BY CITY OF MOORPARK, 1990 CONVENIENCE GOODS Supportable Food Stores/Supermarkets $350 $41,045,900 Sales Per Total I Floor Area Taxable $12,421,100 Retail Goods Category S . Ft. Sales . Ft. Sales CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores/Supermarkets $350 $41,045,900 117,300 $12,724,200 Gasoline Service Stations $200 $12,421,100 62,100 $12,421,100 Food Service/Eating & Drinking Establishments $200 $23,176,300 115,900 $23,176,300 Other Convenience $200 $20.262,500 101.300 $19.249,400 Subtotal $96,905,800 396,600 $67,571,000 COMPARISON GOODS Vehicles (New & Used) $300 $29,491,600 98,300 $29,491,600 Other Comparison $150 $43.269.300 288.500 $43.269,300 Subtotal $72,760,900 386,800 $72,760,900 SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS Misc. Service Establishments $150 $11,103,200 74.000 Total 857,400 Source: Robert E. Goldman and Associates Notes: Other Convenience includes video rental stones, drugstores, book stores, variety stores, liquor stores, auto parts stores Gasoline Service Stations includes only auto related products; excludes mini -marts Misc. Service Establishments includes cleaners, barbers, beauty parlors,auto repair shops, theaters Other Comparison includes Apparel, Home Furnishings & Improvements, Consumer Electronics (TV's, Radios, Stereos, home Computers, etc.) and Toys & Sporting Goods ' '� TABLE B-3 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY ESTIMATED PURCHASES AND FLOOR AREA SUPPORTABLE BY CITY OF MOORPARK, 2000 CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores/Supermarkets Gasoline Service Stations Food Service/Eating & Drinking Establishments Other Convenience Subtotal COMPARISON GOODS Vehicles (New & Used) Other Comparison Subtotal $350 $45,934,700 131,200 Supportable $200 $13,976,500 Sales Per Total Floor Area Taxable Retail Goods Category . Ft. Sales (S q. Ft.) Sales CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores/Supermarkets Gasoline Service Stations Food Service/Eating & Drinking Establishments Other Convenience Subtotal COMPARISON GOODS Vehicles (New & Used) Other Comparison Subtotal $350 $45,934,700 131,200 $14,239,800 $200 $13,976,500 69,900 $13,976,500 $200 $26,287,400 131,400 $26,287,400 $200 $22,814,700 114,100 $21,674,000 $109,013,300 446,600 $76,177,700 $300 $33,503,700 111,700 $33,503,700 $150 $49,048,800 327,000 $49,048,800 $82,552,500 438,700 $82,552,500 SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS Misc. Service Establishments $150 $12,574,100 83,800 Total 969,100 Source: Robert E. Goldman and Associates Notes: Other Convenience includes video rental stores, drugstores, book stores, variety stores, liquor stores, auto parts stores Gasoline Service Stations includes only auto related products; excludes mini -marts Misc. Service Establishments includes cleaners, barbers, beauty parlors,auto repair shops, theaters Other Comparison includes Apparel, Home Furnishings & Improvements, Consumer Electronics (TV's, Radios, Stereos, home Computers, etc.) and Toys & Sporting Goods TABLE B-4 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY PROJECTED INCREASE IN PURCHASES & FLOOR AREA SUPPORRTABLE BY NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NEAR DOWNTOWN (1,640 DU's), 2000 -2015 CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores/Supermarkets Gasoline Service Stations Food Service /Eating & Drinking Establishments Other Convenience Subtotal COMPARISON GOODS Vehicles (New & Used) Other Comparison Subtotal $350 $8,659,000 24,700 Supportable $200 $2,715,700 Sales Per Total Floor Area Taxable Retail Goods Category Sq. Ft. Sales . Ft. Sales CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores/Supermarkets Gasoline Service Stations Food Service /Eating & Drinking Establishments Other Convenience Subtotal COMPARISON GOODS Vehicles (New & Used) Other Comparison Subtotal $350 $8,659,000 24,700 $2,684,300 $200 $2,715,700 13,600 $2,715,700 $200 $5,329,900' 26,600 $5,329,900 $200 $4,449,000 22,200 $4,226,600 $21,153,600 87,100 $14,956,500 $300 $6,849,200 22,800 $6,849,200 $150 $9,914,500 66,100 $9,914,500 $16,763,700 88,900 $16,763,700 SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS Misc. Service Establishments $150 $2,528,800 16,900 Total 192,900 Source: Robert E. Goldman and Associates Notes: Other Convenience includes video rental stores, drugstores, book stores, variety stores, liquor stores, auto parts stores Gasoline Service Stations includes only auto related products; excludes mini -marts Misc. Service Establishments includes cleaners, barbers, beauty parlors,auto repair shops, theaters Other Comparison includes Apparel, Home Furnishings & Improvements, Consumer Electronics (TV's, Radios, Stereos, home Computers, etc.) and Toys &Sporting Goods 4o ' IF I . TABLE B-5 MOORPARK DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION STUDY PROJECTED INCREASE IN PURCHASES & FLOOR AREA SUPPORTABLE BY NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN MOORPARK (3,481 DU's), 2000 -2015 Retail Goods Ca L!:ZFt. Per Total Sales Supportable Floor Area . Ft. Taxable Sales Gasoline Service Stations CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores/Supermarkets $350 $18,379,300 52,500 $5,697,600 Gasoline Service Stations $200 $5,764,300 28,800 $5,764,300 Food Service /Eating & Drinking Establishments $200 $11,313,100 56,600 $11,313,100 Other Convenience $200 $9.443,400 47.200 $8,971,200 Subtotal $44,900,100 185,100 $31,746,200 COMPARISON GOODS Vehicles (New & Used) $300 $14,537,900 48,500 $14,537,900 Other Comparison $150 $21.044.100 140,300 $21,044.100 Subtotal $35,582,000 188,800 $35,582,000 SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS Misc. Service Establishments $150 $5,367,500 35.800 Total 409,700 Source: Robert,E. Goldman and Associates Notes: Other Convenience includes video rental stores, drugstores, book stores, variety stores, liquor stores, auto parts stores Gasoline Service Stations includes only auto related products; excludes mini -marts Misc. Service Establishments includes cleaners, barbers, beauty parlors,auto repair shops, theaters Other Comparison includes Apparel, Home Furnishings & Improvements, Consumer Electronics (TV's, Radios, Stereos, home Computers, etc.) and Toys & Sporting Goods APPENDIX C Block Group Data Katz Hollis & Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency page 68 Table C -1 Selected Demographic Characteristics, 1990 City of Moorpark Ali �'a Downtown Moorpark Trade 76.015 76.021 76.022 76.011 76.012 76.013 76.016 76.023 76.033 Total(1) Area(2) POPULATION Total Persons 1,291 612 2,819 116 3,222 3,234 229 3,291 11,859 26,673 4,722 White 633 370 1,499 95 2,704 2,783 174 2,657 10,175 21,090 2,502 Black 4 7 23 - 49 45 - 76 198 402 34 Asian 13 1 40 1 177 273 7 202 999 1,713 54 Other Races 641 234 1,257 20 292 133 48 356 487 3,468 2,132 Total Hispanic 936 305 1,776 29 731 284 89 602 1165 5,917 3,017 Total Non - hispanic 355 307 1,043 87 2,491 2,950 140 2,689 10694 20,756 1,705 Age Distribution Population under 18 449 166 967 31 1,082 835 64 1,040 4236 8,870 1,582 Population 18 - 64 729 391 1,746 79 2,046 2,202 151 2,155 7260 16,759 2,866 Population 65 & over 113 55 106 6 94 197 14 96 363 1,044 274 HOUSEHOLDS Total Households 318 171 710 35 971 1,157 66 1,062 3478 7,968 1,199 Income Distribution Less than $5000 25 10 8 - 18 8 7 - 8 84 43 $5000 to $9999 25 4 5 23 - 31 - 26 18 132 34 $10000 to $14999 32 14 36 - 17 20 7 42 38 206 82 $15000 to $19999 26 4 94 - 44 53 - 24 28 273 124 $20000 to $29999 22 16 58 - 100 88 7 75 135 501 96 $30000 to $49999 69 18 229 16 162 167 18 256 451 1,386 316 $50000 to $74999 43 45 234 - 303 454 14 342 1191 2,626 322 $75000 and over 71 58 42 19 301 202 7 241 1523 2,464 171 Sum 313 169 706 58 945 1,023 60 1,006 3,392 7,672 1,188 Median Income 34,375 58,133 40,474 33,438 55,925 54,493 31,250 52,206 69,712 Average Income 44,842 58,273 44,417 49,829 65,226 55,153 40,621 59,736 74,240 63,824 46,436 Ali �'a Source: 1990 Census, STF1A and STF3A Notes (1) Moorpark city totals calculated by summing the data for the nine Block Groups that comprise the City. (2) The Downtown Trade Area is defined as the following Block Groups: 76.015, 76.021 and 76.022 RW e ,i R 1,249 50 628 571 Table C -1 Selected Demographic Characteristics, 1990 City of Moorpark HOUSING Total Housing Units 330 174 745 37 1,023 1,208 68 1,147 3540 8,272 Vacant Housing Units 12 3 35 2 52 51 2 85 62 304 Tenure Owner Occupied 154 136 338 20 734 1,062 37 637 3236 6,354 Renter Occupied 164 35 372 15 237 95 29 425 242 1,614 Source: 1990 Census, STF1A and STF3A Notes (1) Moorpark city totals calculated by summing the data for the nine Block Groups that comprise the City. (2) The Downtown Trade Area is defined as the following Block Groups: 76.015, 76.021 and 76.022 RW e ,i R 1,249 50 628 571 APPENDIX D Prospective Tenant/Developer Letters (Samples) Katz Hollis $ Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. page 71 Downtown Revitalization Study City of Moorpark Redevelopment Agency 00008 EXHIBIT D -1 Rodino Associates Urban Revitalization & Real Estate Services 17810 Tramonto Drive, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 3101459 -9474 Fax: 31014546046 bobrodino@aol.com TO: JIM SPILLANE / STARBUCKS COFFEE FAX NUMBER: 714/424 -1920 PHONE: 714/424 -1900 FROM: Bob Rodino DATE :8/24/99 SUBJECT: Downtown Moorpark Retail Opportunities NUMBER OF PAGES, MTH COVER. 5 The City of Moorpark, California is embarking on a downtown redevelopment program and is seeking your interest in locating a retail operation on High Street or Moorpark Avenue. One concept we are investigating is to create an eclectic mix of retailers and small office buildings serving Moorpark as well as the Thousand Oaks - Simi Valley areas, with a focus on home improvement, home furnishings, design (interior and architectural), antiques, arts and crafts, specialty foods, ethnic foods, and commuter - related convenience retailers (see. enclosed list). The demographics are: Moorpark 29,000; Simi Valley 101,000; Thousand Oaks 110,000. Median Household Income ranges from $55,000 to $65,000 in the area. High Street has an attractive small town -old west look to it, and is an extension of E. Los Angeles Avenue, with an on /off ramp at the 118 Freeway to the east. It is served by the Metrolink commuter station located on the south side of the street, connecting to the San Fernando Valley, downtown Los Angeles, Oxnard and Santa Barbara. The downtown is currently populated by the Civic Center, local retailers, small attractive office buildings, the Metrolink station and parking lot, the Secret Garden restaurant, locally owned clothing stores and restaurants, and an attractive looking (soon to be closed) granary. A large city -owned property borders the commuter railroad tracks on the southside of High Street, with approximately 1,250 feet of street frontage and 100 feet in depth. This site includes the granary and several parcels of vacant land. Retail sales leakage data is enclosed, along with area and location maps. A 497 unit single- family housing development is soon to begin construction just to the north of downtown, with home prices in the $300,000 range. Moorpark currently has a homeownership rate of 93 %. Retail sites will accommodate retailers and restaurants in the 1,000 to 12,000 square foot range with adequate on -site and street parking. If you are interested in a possible retail location in downtown Moorpark, please indicate below and FAX this page back to us at 3101454 -6046 as soon as possible. Thank you for your time. YES, WE'RE INTERESTED IN DOWNTOWN MOORPARK NO, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED AT THIS TIME. EXHIBIT D -2 Rodino Associates Urban Revitalization & Real Estate Services 17810 Tramonto Drive, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 3101459 -9474 Fax: 310 1454 -6046 bobrodino@aol.com l" TO: VIC LACAGINA / LA CAGNINA & ASSOCIATES FAX NUMBER: 818/788 -8879 PHONE: 818/788 -8080 FROM:. Bob Rodino DATE: 8/13/99 SUBJECT: Downtown Moorpark Retail Opportunities NUMBER OF PAGES, WITH COVER: 6 - The City of Moorpark, California is embarking on a downtown redevelopment program and is seeking your interest in developing retail and /or office properties on High Street or Moorpark Avenue. Of particular interest is the city -owned site on High Street which the city would sell or ground lease under favorable terms. The site is approximately 1,250 ft along High Street and 100 ft. deep. A site map is enclosed. In addition, several privately ownerd sites will become available of about 15,000 sq ft., suitable for a small office or retail building. One concept we are investigating is to create an eclectic mix of retailers and small office buildings serving Moorpark as well as the Thousand Oaks - Simi Valley areas, with a focus on home improvement, home furnishings, design (interior and architectural), antiques, arts and crafts,_ specialty foods, ethnic foods, and commuter - related convenience retailers. The city -owned site can be ideal for, but not limited to, a combination of restaurants, small office buildings, and retailing in the theme described. High Street has an attractive small town -old west look to it, and is an extension of E. Los Angeles Avenue, with an on /off ramp at the 118 Freeway to the east. It is served by the Metrolink commuter station Dated on the south side of the street, connecting to the San Fernando Valley, downtown Los Angeles, Oxnard and Santa Barbara. The downtown is currently populated by the Civic Center, local retailers, small attractive office buildings, the Metrolink station and parking lot, the Secret Garden restaurant, locally owned clothing stores and restaurants, and an attractive looking (soon to be closed) granary. The city- owned property borders the commuter railroad tracks and includes the granary and several parcels of vacant land. The city has money to structurally improve the granary and would like to see it renovated for use as a landmark retail center. Population of Moorpark is 26,000, plus the adjacent communities of Simi Valley is 101,000 and Thousand Oaks is 110,000, with a total regional market of about 250,000. A 497 unit single- family housing development is soon to begin construction just to the north of downtown, and an additional 1,000 homes to be constructed within the next 2 -3 years. Home prices will be in the $300,000 plus range. Moorpark has -a high homeownership rate of 93 %. Please indicate your interest in developing in downtown Moorpark below and FAX this page back to us at 31014546046 as soon as possible. Thank you for your time. YES, WERE INTERESTED IN DOWNTOWN MOORPARK NO, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED AT THIS TIME. 00009fL TA.ME-MMUM-� MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Moorpark, California April 14, 1999 A Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark was held on April 14, 1999 in the Community Center of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 6:57 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Agency Members Evans, Rodgers, Wozniak and Chair Hunter Absent: Agency Member Harper (present at reconvened meeting) Staff Present: Steven Kueny, Executive Director; and John Nowak, Agency Treasurer. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 4. CLOSED SESSION: Mr. Kueny announced that Item 4.A. on the agenda would be discussed in Agency closed session at the conclusion of the regular City Council meeting. MOTION: Chair Hunter moved and Agency Member Evans seconded a motion to adjourn to closed session for a discussion of Item 4.A. on the agenda, following the conclusion of the regular City Council meeting. The motion carried by voice vote 4 -0, Agency Member Harper absent. AT THIS POINT in the meeting, a recess was declared. The time was 6:58 P.M. The Agency reconvened into closed session at 10:40 p.m., with all Agency Members present, for a discussion of Item 4.A. on the agenda. A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 45 E. High Street Agency Negotiator: John Nowak, Moorpark Redevelopment Agency Treasurer 000011-91,� Minutes of the Redevelopment Ag Moorpark, California Negotiating Parties: Under Negotiation: Present in closed session Kueny, Executive Director; ency Page 2 April 14, 1999 Moorpark Redevelopment Agency American Commercial Bank Price and terms of payment were all Agency Members; Steven and John Nowak, Agency Treasurer. The Council reconvened into open session at 10:58 p.m. Mr. Kueny stated that there was no action to report. 5. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Agency Member Wozniak moved and Agency Member Evans seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 10:59 p.m. Patrick Hunter, Chair ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt Agency Secretary 0004'93 MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Moorpark, California September 15, 1999 A Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark was held on September 15, 1999 in the Community Center of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:28 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Agency Members Evans, Harper, Rodgers, Wozniak and Chair Hunter Staff Present: Steven Kueny, Executive Director; John Nowak, Agency Treasurer; Cheryl Kane, Agency General Counsel; and Deborah Traffenstedt, Agency Secretary. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Consider a Sale of Public Property without Bid and an Agreement to Purchase with Far West Homes LLC Related to two Agency Owned Parcels (APN 506 -0- 020 -490 and APN 506- 0- 020 -500) South of Los Angeles Avenue (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED). Staff Recommendation: 1) Conduct the public hearing on the proposed sale of public property without bid; 2) Close the public hearing and open discussion on the proposed sale and the Agreement; 3) approve the finding that the two parcels of land have no practical use other than to the adjoining property and approve the sale of the Agency's real property to Far West Homes LLC. in the amount of $15,000; 4) Approve the "Agreement to Purchase" and authorize the Executive Director to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Agency. Mr. Nowak gave the staff report. In response to Agency Member Harper, Mr. Nowak stated the City originally paid $30,000 for the three properties. He stated the 2 parcels under discussion cost approximately $7,000. He stated a current appraisal had not been conducted on the parcels. 0 010, 0-9 4 Minutes of the Redevelopment Agency Moorpark, California Page 2 September 15, 1999 Mr. Kueny suggested the Agency discuss the matter in closed session prior to negotiating a final price. In response to Chair Hunter, Mr. Kueny stated the agenda did not allow for a discussion of the matter, but suggested it be discussed at a special meeting on September 291 1999. Agency Member Wozniak stated he did not understand why the value of the property had not been determined previously. He stated he could not support jeopardizing moving forward. Chair Hunter stated the Agency would either need to take action or delay until September 29, 1999, to discuss the matter in Closed Session. Mr. Kueny stated the Agency could defer consideration until later in the evening. Chair Hunter suggested tabling the item until after the Council item was discussed. Agency Member Evans concurred with Agency Member Wozniak. He stated the staff report for the Council item was incomplete. He suggested the Agency take action on the matter since the land could not be used for any other purpose. Agency Member Harper supported tabling the item until the Council item was discussed. Agency Member Rodgers concurred with Agency Member Harper and supported tabling the item. Chair Hunter stated tabling the item had no effect on the decision making process for the Council item. Chair Hunter opened the public hearing and stated that there were no public speakers. CONSENSUS: By consensus, the Agency tabled the item to follow the Council agenda Item 9.E. 000095 Minutes of the Redevelopment Agency Moorpark, California Page 3 September 15, 1999 5. PRESENTATION /ACTION /DISCUSSION: A. Consider the Redevelopment Agency's Downtown Business Loan Program. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Mr. Nowak gave the staff report. Agency Member Evans stated he had requested the item be placed on the agenda, due to conversations he had with merchants with businesses in the centers adjacent to the Spring Road Bridge project. He suggested study of some type of program for low - interest loans to assist merchants. He suggested a secured, low - interest loan program for businesses operating at least 3 years, to assist with problems related to City projects. Agency Member Harper stated he supported the concept. In response to Chair Hunter, Ms. Kane recommended creating a new program for operating costs, rather than amending the current program designed for physical improvements. She stated Redevelopment Law did not authorize the use of Redevelopment funds for operating costs. She stated the program could be set up and a court validation action could then be requested. She stated this action would incur costs for the Agency and would take 60 -90 days. She stated the risk for not going through the process would be that the Agency could be held individually liable if challenged. She stated the Agency could consider a loan from the Area of Contribution (AOC) fund. Agency Member Harper stated the time required for a validation action would make the matter a moot point. Chair Hunter suggested referring the matter to the Economic Development Committee with parameters for immediate recommendation to the Council. Agency Member Evans suggested requiring loan applicants to have an existing business for a certain period of time and suggested that a public improvement project would need to have been under construction for a certain time period. He also stated that the loan should be secured with a low interest rate. Minutes of the Redevelopment Agency Moorpark, California Page 4 W September 15, 1999 In response to Agency Member Harper, Mr. Nowak stated the Committee could meet next week. CONSENSUS: Directed staff to refer the loan program to the Council Economic Development Committee for a recommendation. AT THIS POINT in the meeting, a recess was declared to reconvene the City Council meeting. The time was 7:52 p.m. The Agency reconvened at 11:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued): A. Consider a Sale of Public Property without Bid and an Agreement to Purchase with Far West Homes LLC Related to two Agency Owned Parcels (APN 506 -0- 020 -490 and APN 506- 0- 020 -500) South of Los Angeles Avenue (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED). Staff Recommendation: 1) Conduct the public hearing on the proposed sale of public property without bid; 2) Close the public hearing and open discussion on the proposed sale and the Agreement; 3) approve the finding that the two parcels of land have no practical use other than to the adjoining property and approve the sale of the Agency's real property to Far West Homes LLC. in the amount of $15,000; 4) Approve the "Agreement to Purchase" and authorize the Executive Director to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Agency. Chair Hunter stated he was inclined to proceed with the staff recommendation. Chair Hunter closed the public hearing. MOTION: Agency Member Wozniak moved and Agency Member Rodgers seconded a motion to approve the finding that the two parcels of land have no practical use other than to the adjoining property and approve the sale of the Agency's real property to Far West Homes LLC. in the amount of $15,000 and approve the "Agreement to Purchase" and authorize the Executive Director to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Agency. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. AT THIS POINT in the meeting, a recess was declared to reconvene the City Council meeting. The time was 11:32 p.m. The Agency reconvened at 11:45 p.m. 0 10 r Minutes of the Redevelopment Agency Moorpark, California Page 5 September 15, 1999 6. CLOSED SESSION: Mr. Kueny announced that Item 6.A. would be discussed in closed session. MOTION: Agency Member Rodgers moved and Agency Member Harper seconded a motion to adjourn to closed session for a discussion of Item 6.A. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 12:36 a.m. A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 724 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021 Agency Negotiator: Steven Kueny, Executive Director Negotiating Parties: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark and Jane J. Heath Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of payment Property: 765 Walnut Street, Moorpark, CA 93021 Agency Negotiator: Steven Kueny, Executive Director Negotiating Parties: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark and R -M Gunter Trust Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of payment Property: 798 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021 Agency Negotiator: Steven Kueny, Executive Director Negotiating Parties: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark and Laszlo B. Kovacs Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of payment Property: 284 Charles Street, Moorpark, CA 93021 Agency Negotiator: Steven Kueny, Executive Director Negotiating Parties: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark and Conrado R. Lopez, et al. Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of payment Property: 296 Charles Street, Moorpark, CA 93021 Agency Negotiator: Steven Kueny, Executive Director Negotiating Parties: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark and Benjamin Duarte Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of payment Property: 285 High Street, Moorpark, CA 93021 Agency Negotiator: Steven Kueny, Executive Director Negotiating Parties: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark and Randy - Tracy Marsh Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of payment 0 (,1() +_:'3S Minutes of the Redevelopment Agency Moorpark, California Page 6 September 15, 1999 Property: 297 High Street, Moorpark, CA 93021 Agency Negotiator: Steven Kueny, Executive Director Negotiating Parties: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark and Randall - Tracy E. Marsh Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of payment Property: 661 Magnolia Street, Moorpark, CA 93021 Agency Negotiator: Steven Kueny, Executive Director Negotiating Parties: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark and Estella Betancourt Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of payment Property: APN 512 -0- 062 -020 (no situs) Agency Negotiator: Steven Kueny, Executive Director Negotiating Parties: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark and County of Ventura Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of payment Property: APN 512 -0- 062 -040 (no situs) Agency Negotiator: Steven Kueny, Executive Director Negotiating Parties: The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark and Jane J. Heath Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of payment Present in closed session were all Agency Members; Steven Kueny, Executive Director; Cheryl Kane, Agency General Counsel; and John Nowak, Agency Treasurer. The Agency reconvened into open session at 12:54 a.m. Mr. Kueny announced that Item 6.A. was discussed in closed session and that there was no action to report. 7. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Hunter adjourned the meeting at 12:54 p.m. Patrick Hunter, Chair ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt Agency Secretary MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Moorpark, California October 6, 1999 A Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark was held on October 6, 1999 in the Community Center of said City located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Agency Members Evans, Harper, Rodgers, Wozniak and Chair Hunter. Staff Present: Steven Kueny, Executive Director; John Nowak, Agency Treasurer; Cheryl Kane, Agency General Counsel; and Deborah Traffenstedt, Agency Secretary. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: MOTION: Agency Member Wozniak moved and Agency Member Evans seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. A. Consider Resolution No. 99 -88 Amending the FY 1999/00 Operating Budget by Appropriating $4,000 from Redevelopment Agency Funds to Purchase Laptop Com uters. Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 99 -88 amending the FY 1999/00 Operating Budget by appropriating $2,700 from Redevelopment Agency Tax increment funds and $1,300 from Redevelopment set -aside funds for three laptop computers. (ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED). 5. CLOSED SESSION: None was held. (�?.: ?1 Minutes of the Redevelopment Agency Moorpark, California Page 2 October 6, 1999 6. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Agency Member Harper moved and Agency Member Evans seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The time was 7:36 p.m. Patrick Hunter, Chair ATTEST: Deborah S. Traffenstedt Agency Secretary CM OF OORPARK, CALZORII� Redevelopment Agency Meeting 0� ACTI .t MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT BY: TO: Honorable Agency Board of Directors FROM:, John E. Nowak, Assistant Executive Director ��c) DATE: 12 January 2000 (Agency Meeting of 01- 19 -00) SUBJECT: Consider the Transfer of Certain Real Property from the City of Moorpark to the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency. BACKGROUND: In 1998 the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency purchased certain real property located between Los Angeles Avenue and the Arroyo Simi from the City of Moorpark. A parcel (APN 506 -0- 020 -475) which was to be included in the sale was not listed in the staff report. DISCUSSION: On November 6, 1998 the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency agreed to purchase certain property from the City of Moorpark for $45,000. Staff inadvertently omitted one of the parcels to be included in the sale (APN 506 -0- 020 -475) from the staff report. This is one of the parcels that the Agency has previously approved selling to Far West Homes. The Agency Board of Directors is requested to approve the addition of this parcel in the list of property purchased from the City. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the transfer of parcel APN 506-0 - 020 -475 from the City of Moorpark. Attached: Location Map k � �, e, a T�, . Y Ffi �vx +wu ' r, ,� £�ah �s�` �, < ., x.. -✓v ,2., POR TRQ�CT L ��` OSIMI ... MIL _ LA RvD E ST Hw coR 0 84S o�54 -3RM 4,53 2 s .' � LC 8i 7 30.c I I •.44 161 .11_ _ 190�� �IV89 °S. to Jai p '' h N - �— lbo•� L , toj O + 60, M I o Fi h' � Q h /3 h a 24 J o /2 C o M 67,81 S89,.5-.s '1v P N /3s, o to L1 1 b �' ti � z6 — 1.98Ac. LeT 1 tad h -L49 0 - 25 0 1.74Ac/ 6 �2 14 b � S o 26 s 9 3a1.so' � a ss'yy Q! ^ 43PM61 l �3 1 �jg I b O 330. d a � 99Mh'Z2 .o M o 16 0 - h N lOS� 2 O O n^ O 28 O 27 co 51 (� 2 N' 53 a 17 a �3S W Fbr A I X14 1 18 23 a % 1.25Ac -6.571. b 19 L 60 -f�6y4e I 20 �, a Poi 62 / Q I h - 55 6.50Ac. I Nssrs,E o> q X21 ° ` Par 63 2 r--- �- I OT I I QiP LOT 3 I O �' 22 m 140' 31 8.96Ac. !90 Q a NB9`55E �O X44.59' 4pM96l vi 75/Ac. M4JES71C COURT •d ` ` M 320' N69 EAST le ' N83°55'E 228.8i� I o 791 LOT 4 N I ^ b b {p ^ fi59 N 1�cz�+�• �� 32 /8 ) l_ -6e �N I 3c. N } Qi 43PM61 9%iR-26f° I 99MR28 I � RrB a 462.00 7 e -"tee. 9 6/ -240-8 I 199, rt ARROYO SIM1 I 2 789AC. R_IT00.12 �` 30' � LOT 5 50 S.W. COR. LOT 54_ 3RM39 Tract 3537 -/, M.R. E 1.34AG � •� � Bk. Tract 3537 -2, M.R. 6 k 507 Tract 3537 -3, M.R. E Tract _ ct 3537 4, M..4 E rX 0 eati z�Sl . Lot L Poindexter Sv �� Fremont Tract , R.M Bk. 3 t a ss 1.67A-- ; �q�' As. Ro. Simi, R.M. Bk. 3 Pg. ; N� � TRACT 2451 00103 SLY Line LOr L NOTE— Assessor's Block 5RM5 Numbers Assessor's Parcel Numbell'