Coronado Neighborhood Association Fall 2005 MPA Capstone: Emmanuel - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
coronado neighborhood association
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Coronado Neighborhood Association Fall 2005 MPA Capstone: Emmanuel - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 16, 2023 22 likes •276 views

Coronado Neighborhood Association Fall 2005 MPA Capstone: Emmanuel Garcia, Gary Jackson, Jose Ruiz, Sandra Marinelarena, Melodya Salaices Overview of Neighborhood Change and Planning Decentralization of population from the center to the

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Coronado Neighborhood Association

Fall 2005 MPA Capstone: Emmanuel Garcia, Gary Jackson, Jose Ruiz, Sandra Marinelarena, Melodya Salaices

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Overview of Neighborhood Change and Planning

  • Decentralization of population from the center to

the suburbs (post WWII)

  • “Bedroom Communities”—single function areas

(1950-70)

  • Decentralization of commerce and services from

downtown to suburbs (1980s-present)

  • Sub-centers—multi-functional neighborhoods
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Vacant

Mesa St. Sunland Prk.

Historical Growth Coronado Neighborhood

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Population in tract 11.04 as a percentage of total

Census Tract 11.04, El Paso County, Texas El Paso city, Texas

1.3%

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Race and ethnicity for CNA as a percentage of total population

Non- Hispanic/white: 34% Some other race alone 10% Hispanic or Latino: 56%

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Age by gender (tract 11.04)

800 600 400 200 200 400 600 800

Under 1 year 6-17 yrs 25-34 yrs 40-44 yrs 50-54 yrs 60-69 yrs 80+

Male Female

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Household income in 1999

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $44,999 $45,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $59,999 $60,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $124,999 $125,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more

% in tract 11.04 % in county

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Comparison Ratios

Race/EthnicityComparison ratios Not Hispanic NonLatino/White Hispanic Hispanic/Other Tract 11.04 1.63 1.82 0.81 0.58 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1999

Tract 11.04 El Paso City

40,055 $ 32,124 $

Age (Comparison Ratio) Census Tract 11.04 Under 18 0.82 Under 1 year 1.16 1-5 yrs 0.73 6-17 yrs 0.83 18-24 yrs 1.08 25-34 yrs 1.14 35-39 yrs 0.98 40-44 yrs 1.11 45-49 yrs 1.13 50-54 yrs 0.90 55-59 yrs 0.86 60-69 yrs 1.14 70-79 yrs 1.10 80+ 1.33

PER CAPITA INCOME IN 1999

Tract 11.04 El Paso City

18,298 $ 14,388 $

HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD (Comparison R Tract 11.04 1-person household: 1.42 Male householder 1.31 Female householder 0.77 2-or-more-person household: 0.90 Family households 0.86 as % of total hshlds Married-couple as 0.88 % of total hshlds With own children under 18 years 0.72 No own children under 18 years 1.08 Male householder, no wife present: 1.41 Male with own children under 18 years 2.25 Male w/no children under 18 years 0.77 Female householder, no husband present: 0.66 Female w/ own children under 18 years 0.76 Female w/o own children under 18 years 0.51 Nonfamily households: 2.00 Non family Male householder 2.25 Non family Female householder 1.64 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POP 25+ YRS.

Tract 11.04

No schooling completed 0.76 Nursery to 4th grade 0.77 5th and 6th grade 0.44 7th and 8th grade 0.51 9th grade 0.64 10th grade 0.34 11th grade 0.90 12th grade, no diploma 0.56 High school graduate (includes equivalency) 0.71 Some college, less than 1 year 1.04 Some college, 1 or more years, no degree 1.28 Associate degree 1.15 Bachelor's degree 1.70 Master's degree 1.67 Professional school degree 1.50 Doctorate degree 4.78

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Coronado Neighborhood Land Use

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Land Use Acreage Coronado

100.00% 1078.9 TOTAL 9.44% 101.9 WETLANDS 0.30% 3.2 NURSING HOME 13.75% 148.4 OPEN SPACE 0.91% 9.8 PARK 0.76% 8.2 SCHOOL 4.07% 43.9 DRAINAGE 10.08% 108.7 VACANT 6.22% 67.1 MULTI FAMILY 20.08% 216.6 COMMERCIAL 34.40% 371.1 SINGLE FAMILY PERCENT ACREAGE LAND USE TYPE ARROYO INCLUDED AS OPEN SPACE 100% 1078.9 TOTAL 9.44% 101.9 WETLANDS 0.30% 3.2 NURSING HOME 1.57% 16.9 OPEN SPACE 0.91% 9.8 PARK 0.76% 8.2 SCHOOL 4.07% 43.9 DRAINAGE 22.26% 240.2 VACANT 6.22% 67.1 MULTI FAMILY 20.08% 216.6 COMMERCIAL 34.40% 371.1 SINGLE FAMILY PERCENT ACREAGE LAND USE TYPE ARROYO INCLUDED AS VACANT

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Land Use with arroyo included as open space

COMMERCIAL 20% SINGLE FAMILY 35% MULTI FAMILY 6% VACANT 10% WETLANDS 9% OPEN SPACE 14% PARK 1% SCHOOL 1% DRAINAGE 4%

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Land use with arroyo included as vacant land

SINGLE FAMILY 35% COMMERCIAL 20% MULTI FAMILY 6% VACANT 22% WETLANDS 9% OPEN SPACE 2% DRAINAGE 4% SCHOOL 1% PARK 1%

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Land Potential Analysis Parameters

  • No potential (1)
  • Land already developed and property well maintained
  • Parks owned by the city or neighborhood association
  • Facilities owned by the city or neighborhood association (swimming pools)
  • Institutional facilities unlikely to change (schools, churches, etc.)
  • Building in perfect conditions
  • Low Potential (2)
  • Minor deterioration visible; slightly less attractive and desirable, but useful
  • Normal wear and tear is apparent, average attractiveness & desirability
  • Vacant parcel that is small and already zoned
  • Building shows minor deterioration
  • Moderate Potential (3)
  • Marked deterioration but quite useable; rather unattractive and undesirable
  • Definite deterioration is obvious definitely undesirable and barely usable
  • Vacant parcel is large and may alter the character of the surrounding area
  • High Potential (4)
  • Property seems is in “wrong place” incompatible or no-conforming land use
  • Condition approaches unsoundness
  • Building is structurally unsound
  • Vacant parcel large enough and available to develop
slide-14
SLIDE 14
slide-15
SLIDE 15

CNA Land Use Potential

2% 44% 18% 2% 34% No Use No Potential Low Potential Moderate Potential High Potential

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Random Selection of Parcels: Real Estate Analysis

slide-17
SLIDE 17

ETHNIC CHANGE CORONADO NEIGHBORHOOD

Non-H/White = Non-Hispanic/White

ETHNICCH

C

  • r

p e r a t e t

  • C
  • r

p e r a P r i v a t e t

  • C
  • r

p e r a t e S i n g l e O w n e r H i s p a n i c t

  • H

i s p a n i c N

  • n
  • H

/ W h i t e t

  • N
  • n
  • H

C

  • r

p e r a t e t

  • P

r i v a t e H i s p a n i c t

  • N
  • n
  • H

/ W h N

  • n
  • H

/ W h i t e t

  • H

i s p a

Percent

40 30 20 10

Ethnic Change Coronado

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Property Turnover Coronado

SALES

12.00 11.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00

Percent

30 20 10 Descriptive Statistics 195 1.00 12.00 4.3231 2.15465 195 SALES Valid N (listwise) N Minimum Maximum Mean

  • Std. Deviation
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Sales by Decade

SALES * DECADE Crosstabulation 10 2 2 14 8 8 12 28 14 7 5 3 29 9 10 16 3 1 39 9 20 4 4 37 7 3 7 1 2 20 3 1 2 6 2 6 2 1 11 2 1 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 61 32 73 12 15 193 5.2% 1.0% 1.0% .0% .0% 7.3% 4.1% 4.1% 6.2% .0% .0% 14.5% 7.3% 3.6% 2.6% .0% 1.6% 15.0% 4.7% 5.2% 8.3% 1.6% .5% 20.2% 4.7% .0% 10.4% 2.1% 2.1% 19.2% 3.6% 1.6% 3.6% .5% 1.0% 10.4% .0% .0% 1.6% .5% 1.0% 3.1% 1.0% .0% 3.1% 1.0% .5% 5.7% 1.0% .5% .5% .0% 1.0% 3.1% .0% .0% .5% .0% .0% .5% .0% .5% .0% .0% .0% .5% .0% .0% .0% .5% .0% .5% 31.6% 16.6% 37.8% 6.2% 7.8% 100.0% 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 SALES Total 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 SALES Total Count % of Total 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s DECADE Total

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Appreciation Rate Distribution for Coronado

APPRATE

. 8 1 . 6 9 . 5 6 . 4 4 . 3 1 . 1 9 . 6

  • .

6

  • .

1 9

  • .

3 1

  • .

4 4

  • .

5 6

  • .

6 9

  • .

8 1

APPRATE

Frequency

40 30 20 10

  • Std. Dev = .02

Mean = .018 N = 135.00

slide-21
SLIDE 21

The principal concerns in Coronado are:

42% 54% 38% 40% 55% 49% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% The most important concerns in Coronado

Series1 42% 54% 38% 40% 55% 49% Traffic Safety Building Code Improper Land Use Natural Preservation Parks Improvements

slide-22
SLIDE 22

What is the best part of living in Coronado?

quiet & clean active association good location safety good infrastructure privacy friendly neighbors

Percent

30 20 10 19 3 22 10 3 14 28

slide-23
SLIDE 23

What would make you leave the neighborhood?

bad neighbors a dirty neighborhood more traffic retirement taxes crime Arroyo´s development

Percent

40 30 20 10 9 13 11 7 7 24 29

slide-24
SLIDE 24

ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION PROS CONS Development Agreement A negotiated agreement between a locality and a developer (promise not to change its planning, zoning

  • r other laws for a period of time).
  • Comprehensive project planning
  • Method of dealing with requested

environmental impact mitigation

  • Allows parties to enter agreement

related to specific problems

  • Can restrict property to particular

size, use.

  • Vests bldg. Rights at time of

agreement

  • Locality may receive more bens.
  • Requires additional paper work

and time

  • Risky – locality commits to

land-use policies for over 3 yrs.

  • Possible difficulties in

administering agreement that relies on staff knowledge or past land-use regulations Hillside/slope Zoning Performance zoning established for hillside slopes to preserve their unique characteristics and provide safe development. An ordinance is adopted.

  • Safe development on hillsides.
  • Preservation of natural

terrain/view/aesthetics

  • Minimizes dangers of runoff and

sedimentation

  • Development compatible with

site.

  • Reduced effectiveness in multi-

jurisdictional areas

  • In depth geological and soils

investigation by expert Land banking Purchase by a government agency

  • f areas of land with the intent of

controlling their future use.

  • Provides land for future use at

current cost

  • Prevents development of sites

required for parks, open space, public housing, schools, etc.

  • Affords more control over

development in agreement with community

  • Public improvement decisions

benefit

  • Unless Federal/state money is

available, requires large local funds in early stages

  • May be impermissible activity

for govt. to resell at a profit

  • Land is removed from tax rolls

until resold – pressure to sell

  • Burden of maintenance on

government

ALTERNATIVES

slide-25
SLIDE 25

ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION PROS CONS Land Trust A locally based, nonprofit, tax- exempt corporation is legally empowered to accept and manage land to preserve its open space and natural character.

  • Tax incentives
  • Promotes continued use of

productive land

  • Alternative means for open space

and resources preservation

  • Ensures perpetuity of open space
  • Non political nature
  • Requires time, information and

skill (tax benefits and negotiations)

  • Responsible for monitoring use

to be consistent with objectives Mixed use Development Combination of different land uses

  • n same or adjacent lots or within

the same building or complex.

  • Reduce cost of development
  • Bring community facilities closer

together and enhances vitality

  • Reduce transportation needs and

energy consumption

  • Insensitive overlaying of

different kinds of development, particularly where a residential environment is involved

  • Additional time required to

ensure proper implementation of design and buffering standards

  • Perceived nuisance factors

(noise, traffic, & security) Performance Zoning Form of zoning where criteria for establishing districts regulating land uses are based on performance, not design specifications.

  • Minimum zoning districts

required, increased choice- reducing variances and changes.

  • Land uses separated only if

negative impacts are created

  • Considers land capability & only

permits development consistent with defined standards

  • Maximized flexibility
  • Provides incentives to reduce

pollution

  • Complex standards

(administrative skills needed)

  • Land capability standards

require specific technical information

  • May not be appropriate in

residential areas with stable neighborhoods

ALTERNATIVES