The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES 1998 354 0615RESOLUTION NO: PC 98 -354 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPAIM CALIFORNIA PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOORPARK AND MESSENGER DEVELOPMENT REGARDING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8: HIDDEN CREEK RANCH. Whereas, Section 65864, Article 2.5, Chapter 4, Division 1, Title 7 of the State Planning and Zoning Law provides that cities may enter into contractual obligations known as development agreements with persons having equitable interest in real property for development of that property; and Whereas, the owners of the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan have applied to the City of Moorpark to seek a development agreement between the city and said owners pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Moorpark Municipal Code; and Whereas, the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark has previously reviewed the EIR, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan 8, and Zone Change requests and has made recommendations to the City Council pertaining to the approval of said requests; and Whereas, a Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 94021028) has been certified for the Hidden Creek Ranch/Specific Plan 8 by the City Council on January 21, 1998 ; and Whereas, the City Council desires that the Planning Commission evaluate and provide recommendations for revision, denial and/or approval of a development agreement between the City and Owners, and has provided the Commission with true copies of the development agreement; and Whereas, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on June 8, 1998, and continued at an adjourned meeting on June 15,1998 to consider the development agreement and to accept public testimony related thereto; and Whereas, the Planning Commission has considered all points of public testimony relevant to the development agreement and has given careful consideration to the content of the development agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: C:\M\jll\sp8reso\devag ATTACHMENT A Section 1. The Planning Commission having conducted a public hearing on the form and content of a development agreement between the City of Moorpark and the owners of Hidden Creek Ranch, at the request of the City Council, hereby recommends that the City Council, at public hearing before said Council, approve the development agreement in the form and content presented to the Planning Commission on June 8, 1998, except for minor corrections necessary to meet legal format; Section 2. A copy of this Resolution, documents furnished by the public, transcripts of testimony and minutes of the public hearing be furnished to the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 1998. AYES: Acosta, DiCecco, Miller, Lowenberg; NOES: Millhouse. ATTEST: Celia LaFleur, Secretary to the Planning Commission C:Wjll \sp8reso \devag Findings and Conclusions The Net Fiscal Impact of the Hidden Creek Ranch Project: A Summary The end - product of this analysis is to determine the net fiscal impact of the Hidden Creek Ranch project under five separate scenarios on the City of Moorpark. The scope of the analysis is to consider the full seventeen year development schedule of the project. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the first year of development is 1999 with the last year of development in 2015. The detailed expense and revenue reports generated by the FIND Model are presented as a series of attachments to this report labeled by scenario option. As indicated previously, the primary variation in each scenario is the amount and phasing of commercial development. Broadly, the five project scenarios can be summarized as follows: • Commercial Development Phasing: 2001 -2009 (Option 1) • Reduced Commercial Development: 180,000 square feet (Option 2) • Commercial Development Phasing: 2004 -2015 (Option 3) • Commercial Development Phasing: 2009 -2015 (Option 4) • No Commercial Development (Option 5). The selection of these development scenarios recognizes an interest in taking a conservative approach when analyzing the impacts of commercial development in the area. While the feasibility analysis indicates a significant market area for Simi Valley /Moorpark, as well as a significant amount of sales tax leakage from the City of Moorpark, there are a number of factors that contribute to a conservative approach to the development of commercial property in the Hidden Creek Ranch project area including: ■ Remote location of site ■ History of commercial development in the City of Moorpark ■ Proposed development projects in the Simi Valley market area ■ Significant impact of the development of commercial property on the net fiscal impact of the Hidden Creek project. Exhibit V -3 presents the summary of the net fiscal impact analysis of each of these development scenarios on the City. Selected years include 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015. As indicated in Exhibit V -3 and the detailed expense /revenue comparison reports, development within the sphere, as currently proposed: At build -out, a positive net fiscal impact occurs in those scenarios assuming full commercial development (Options 1, 3 and 4); the positive net impact ranges from $10,227 in Scenario #1 to $44,189 in Scenario #4. Page 29 ATTACHMENT B Findings and Conclusions ■ At build -out, the negative net fiscal impact ranges from $124,015 assuming reduced commercial development of 180,000 square feet to $278,178 assuming no commercial development. Assuming full commercial development with development beginning to come on- line in 2001, a positive net fiscal impact occurs in 12 out of 17 years; this positive impact ranges from a low of $4,088 in 2008 to a high of $77,804 in 2005; the negative fiscal impact for the remaining five years ranges from a low of $3,618 in 2004 to a high of $19,337 in 2002. ■ Assuming full commercial development with development beginning to come on- line in 2004, a negative fiscal impact occurs in all but two years including 1999 and 2015 (build -out); the negative fiscal impact ranges from a low of S13,670 in 2000 to a high of S185,421 in 2014. ■ Assuming full commercial development with development beginning to come on- line in 2009, a negative fiscal impact occurs in all but two years including 1999 and 2015 (build -out); the negative fiscal impact ranges from a low of $13,670 in 2000 to a high of $243,222 in 2014. ■ Assuming reduced or no commercial development, a negative fiscal impact occurs in all study years with the exception of 1999; this negative fiscal impact ranges from a low of $13,670 in 2000 assuming reduced commercial to a high of $301,023 in 2014 assuming no commercial. As stated previously, the detailed expense /revenue comparison reports are contained in the first five tabs at the end of this report by development scenario. EXHIBIT V -3 — NET FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR SELECTED YEARS 2000 2005 2010 2015 OPTION 1: COMMERCIAL PHASING 2001 -2009 Revenue $318,545 $1,267,264 $1,542,185 $1,798,558 Less Expenses (332,215) (1,189,460) (1,511,750) (1,788,331) Net Impact (13,670) 77,804 30,435 10,227 OPTION 2: REDUCED COMMERCIAL Revenue 318,545 884,777 1,208,200 1,577,021 Less Expenses (332,215) (1,055,158) (1,384,163) (1,701,035) Net Impact (13,670) (170,381) (175,963) (124,015) OPTION 3: CDMMEROW. PHASING 2004;2015 - Revenue 318,545 976,154 1,268,056 1,824,030 Less Expenses (332,215) (1,088,733) (1,411,024) (1,788,331) Net Impact (13,670) (112,580) (142,968) 35,698 Page 30 is s It Assuming a property Tax Local Share of 7.89% The five development scenarios summarized in Exhibit V -3 and contained in attachments to this report assume a property tax local share of 3:13 %. This percentage rate assumes a County General Fund Tax Rate (GM,) of 22.000% and a generally accepted estimate of 14.66% of the County's GFTR being allocated to cities' newly annexed land. These assumptions were developed by City staff in conjunction with representatives of the County. Recognizing that this rate of 3.23% is significantly below the City's current local share of 7.89% for incorporated areas, the City was interested in running each of the five scenarios assuming this higher local share rate. Exhibit V-4 summarizes the resulting property tax generated for each scenario assuming the higher tax rate as well as the net fiscal impact to the City under these new assumptions. As indicated in Exhibit V-4: ■ A positive net fiscal impact occurs in all study years for all development scenarios, although the margin varies significantly depending on the assumptions regarding commercial development. ■ At build -out, the positive net fiscal impact ranges from a low of $120,388 assuming no commercial development to $481,217 assuming that all 325,000 square feet of commercial retail space develops with development beginning in 2009. As stated previously, the year -by -year comparisons are summarized in Exhibit V-4. _ Page 31 Findings and Conclusions EXHIBIT V -3 — NET FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR SELECTED YEARS Go 2010 201S OPTION 4: COMMERCIAL PH SiN0 3009.3018 318,545 777 1,176,679 1,832,521 Revenue (332,215) [A(170..33811 58) (1,377,448) (1,788,331) Less Expenses (13,670) (200,769) 44,189 Net Impact OPTIoN 5: No COMMERCIAL 318,545 884.m 1,�•� 1,341,676 Revenue (332.215) (1,055,158) (1,343.873) (1,620,454) Less Expenses (13,670) (170,381) (258,570) (278,778) Net Impact Assuming a property Tax Local Share of 7.89% The five development scenarios summarized in Exhibit V -3 and contained in attachments to this report assume a property tax local share of 3:13 %. This percentage rate assumes a County General Fund Tax Rate (GM,) of 22.000% and a generally accepted estimate of 14.66% of the County's GFTR being allocated to cities' newly annexed land. These assumptions were developed by City staff in conjunction with representatives of the County. Recognizing that this rate of 3.23% is significantly below the City's current local share of 7.89% for incorporated areas, the City was interested in running each of the five scenarios assuming this higher local share rate. Exhibit V-4 summarizes the resulting property tax generated for each scenario assuming the higher tax rate as well as the net fiscal impact to the City under these new assumptions. As indicated in Exhibit V-4: ■ A positive net fiscal impact occurs in all study years for all development scenarios, although the margin varies significantly depending on the assumptions regarding commercial development. ■ At build -out, the positive net fiscal impact ranges from a low of $120,388 assuming no commercial development to $481,217 assuming that all 325,000 square feet of commercial retail space develops with development beginning in 2009. As stated previously, the year -by -year comparisons are summarized in Exhibit V-4. _ Page 31 Messenger Financial Impact $300,000 A. V. ATTACHMENT C 05/30/97 YEARS LOSS NPV 10 1,509.45 1,140.45 20 3,538.02 2,064.08 Ad Valorum Tax Value 300,000.00 30 6,264.25 2,812.10 1% Property Tax 3,000.00 40 9,928.08 3,417.91 Normal City Tax .07888 236.67 50 14,851.96 3,908.53 Reduced City Tax .035 105.00 60 21,469.25 4,305.88 Property Tax Loss NCT -RCT 131.67 70 30,362.32 4,627.69 Loss Per Home 131.67 1 80 42,313.87 4,888.31 AV Growth Factor 1.0300 90 58,375.75 5,099.38 Interest Discount LAIF 5 r Avg) 0.0520 100 79,961.58 5,270.32 ATTACHMENT C 05/30/97