HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-01-23; City Council; 10468; COUNCIL REQUEST TO REVIEW THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAMSrl
-I-?
1. M w
u (d u1 0 CtJ al Sdm ual bo *- (d %
ad (d :2 (dm
a0 mw
SUI
bow
:c pi *rl
GaJ
4-Ic a 0 -I4 a
tJ0 hL4
aJaJ c 5z
Mcd bo arc
rlcl c
*rl c,o B
GL4 =la
$4-
utJ alal Cra
Sh al c1 -4 aJ
r4 *rl 3
$52
0arJ 3cL4
0
rc) N
\ rl
uE oal
cdu mc
.d uu
$3
2;
as aJu
WaJ * *d a
Y:
vuv
0 --.
.. z
k 0 4
2
4 5 z 3 0 0
CITWF CARLSBAD - AGENDWILL 44
AB#-L TITLE: DEP
MTG. /-23'-90 CITI
DEPT. c/V GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS CITJ
COUNCIL REQUEST TO REVIEW THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review the attached materials and take the appropriate action,
ITEM EXPLANATION
At the City Council meeting of Janu-ary 9, 1990,the Council directed stai to put on the next available agenda for review the proposed Growth Management Program for the City of San Diego.
Staff has obtained a copy of the proposed Growth Management ordinance wh is currently being considered. The purpose stated in the ordinance is: This ordinance is attached as Exhibit #l.
"to assure that future growth and development in San Diego proceeds consistent with the ability of the City to provide adequate public services and facilities to meet the needs of existing and future residents and businesses.
The San Diego City Council held a special meeting to discuss the proposec ordinance and other growth management related items on January 11, 1990. Attached as Exhibit #2 is a memorandum to the Mayor and Members of the Sa Diego City Council dated January 3, 1990 with these additional growth management items included, as well as a Growth Management Status Report Update.
Action taken at this meeting was not available at the time this agenda bi was prepared.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
EXHIBITS :
1. City of San Diego Proposed Growth Management Ordinance,
2. A memorandum to the Mayor and Members of the San Diego City Council dated January 3, 1990.
7 * @ OFFICE OF HAYOR O'CONNOR
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
NOTICE OF SPECIAL KEETING
. .i/.
DATE : DECEMBER a, 1989
TO : CITY OF SAN DIEGO COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM : MAYOR MAUREEN O'CONNGR
SUBJECT: SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUIJCIL
A WORRSBOP AND CONCURREM: SPECIAL KEE'I'ING of the CITY COUNCIL is hereby
called to be held in the Council Committee Room, 12th Floor, 202 "cff
Street, San Diego, California, at the hour of 2:OO p.m. on Thursday,
January 11, 1990.
Said meeting has been called for the purpose of discussing Growth
Management issues and Introducing the Planned Growth Initiative,
Managing ;an Diego's growth, and guaranteeing current and future residents
with adequate public services and facilities remains one of the most
important issues facing the City. The recent City Council elections
reaffirm the people's insistence that we resolve these issues and assure
the protection of San Diego's high quality of life.
There is now, for the first time since my election as Mayor, an indication
that a clear majority on the City Council reflects my vievs as well as the
residents' position on these issues, and it is now time to record the ne-J
Council's vote on this issue. The uncertainty created by our past actions
has not satisfied the people, or business and industry leaders. The city
needs to act now to end this uncertainty, and guarantee that our
transportation sys terns and public facilities will keep up vi th future
growth, while still permitting new development to accommodate the needs
generated by our healthy economy.
I propose that the City Council immediately adopt the proposed Planned
Growth Initiative as an ordinance to resolve outstanding public facility
issues. Initiative to advise the Council regarding legs1 issues.
To address the remaining environmental protection issues, 1 will introduce
amendments to the Resource Protection Ordinance, Council Policy No. 600-29
and other existing regulations to guarantee the level of protection the
people de and.
i
I am request;ng that the city Attorney reviev the Planned Growth
A 8/KLfT &a&4d&4- ( May 02 1 (Date)
Distribution: Original - City Clerk
cc - Council Members Council Representative
City Attorney Media
, City Manager
,'
* FINAL PLANNED @.I. ORDINANCE Dm DATE @-Jan-1990
(0-90-???)
k ORDINANCE NUMBER 0- (NEW SERIES)
ADOPTED ON
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VI "PUBLIC PROPERTY: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS" OF THE SAN DIEGO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
ARTICLE 9.5, COMMENCING AT SECTION 69.5.0101, RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT REPORTS.
WHEREAS, The City of San Diego is growing at a rapid rate and it has
become difficult for the City to adequately provide pubic facilities and
services to accommodate that growth without reductions in the quality of
life for residents; and
WHEREAS, San Diego's streets and highways are becoming increasingly
congested, and are projected to become even more congested as growth within
the City continues; and
WHEREAS, Many of San Diego's communities do not have adequate parks,
libraries, and other public facilities needed to serve existing and
projected residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, Regional facilities are also becoming overburdened and
overcrowded as a result of the inability of public agencies to expand
capacities in response to continuing rapid growth; and
.
WHEREAS, The City has not established firm standards necessary PO
assure adequate levels of service for public facilities and services to
existing and projected residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, The full impact of new development upon public facilities,
services and the City's budget is often unknown at the time of project
approval; and
-PAGE 1 OF 17-
* FINAL PLA"ED e ORDINANCE Dm DATE:~.Jan-l.990
b WHEREAS, Uncertainty in the governmental approval process regarding
i the requirements, assessments, fees, and other exactions which may be
demanded of new development increases the risk, cost and time required to
gain approval of development projects; THEREFORE
--
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of The City of San Diego, as follows:
Section 1. That Chapter VI of the San Diego Municipal Code be and the
same is hereby amended by adding Article 9.5 commencing at
Section 69.5.0101, to read as follows:
ARTICLE 9.5
DEVELOPMINT IXPACT REPORTS
SBC. 69.5.0101 PURPOSE AND I"T
The purpose of this Article is to assure that future growth and
development in San Diego proceeds consistent with the ability of the City
to provide adequate public services and facilities to meet the needs of
existing and future residents and businesses. To accomplish this purpose,
this Article establishes the following planning principles and provides for
their strict enforcement:
A. New development shall not cause an increase in traffic congestion on
our freeways, highways, and streets.
B. New development shall not cause a deterioration in the level of public
services provided to existing residents and businesses.
C. Provision of public facilities necessary to serve new development
prior to or concurrent with the need for them shall be assured.
D. Existing residents and businesses of San Diego shall not be required
to subsidize new development.
proportionate share of the costs of additional public facilities
necessary to serve the new development.
New development shall pay its full
-PAGE 2 OF 17--
c FINAL P~GxOUTEi ORDINANCE Dm D @ : 08-Jan-1990
. E. New development shall promote water conservation and shall not
b contribute to future water supply and quality problems.
F. New development shall not contribute to air quality deterioration.
It is the intent.of the City Council that the provisions of this Article
implement the Progress Guide and General Plan of the City of San Diego an(
adopted City Council Policies. The standards mandated by this Article arc
intended to clarify and carry out the standards, guidelines and
recommendations of the various elements of the Progress Guide and General
Plan in order to assure that the goals and objectives of the Progress Guic
and General Plan, especially those contained in the sections entitled
"Introductiontr and "Guidelines for Future Developrnent,lI will be achieved.
-
I-
It is the intent of the City Council that the provisions of this Article b
implemented in the most efficient and timely manner feasible.
feasible, the analyses of discretionary projects mandated by this Article
shall be prepared and reported Simultaneously With other impact analyses?
including but not limited to any required environmental analysis.
Whenever
SEC. 69.5.0102 TRAFFIC CONGESTION ANALYSIS
A.
of the road system, including but not limited to freeways, highways,
arterials, major streets, and collector streets. Standards shall be set a'
level of service "C" or better during off-peak hours, and level of service
IrD" or better during peak hours.
Traffic congestion standards shall be established for all components
-7
B, Prior to approval of a discretionary project a detailed traffic
congestion analysis of the discretionary project shall be completed.
analysis shall identify all significant adverse impacts of the proposed
discretionary project upon the established standards, including the
discretionary project's proportionate Share of any cumulative impacts.
analysis shall also identify the specific new public facilities and
infrastructure, and specific improvements to existing facilities which
would be provided by the discretionary project.
The
The
-PAGE 3 OF 17-
. FINAL PLANNED d).. ORDINANCE DRAPT DATE :&an-1990
c.
standards and adverse impacts from the proposed discretionary project would
Where existing levels of service are equal or above the established -
cause levels of service of any components of the road system to fall below
the established standards the applicant shall be required to fully mitigate
such impacts to ensure that levels of service will not fall below the
established standards.
D.
and adverse impacts from the proposed discretionary project would cause the
levels of service to fall further below the established standards the
applicant shall be required to fully mitigate such impacts to ensure that
levels of service will not fall further below existing levels of service.
Where existing levels of service fall below the established standards
1 E. Acceptable mitigation measures may include one or more of the
following:
1. Improvements to the public transportation, bikeway, and/or road
sys t ems.
2. Changes of density in the proposed discretionary project.
3. Changes of use in the proposed discretionary project to achieve a
better balance between jobs and housing.
4. A phasing and scheduling plan for the proposed discretionary
project.
5. Contribution of fees to appropriate public agencies in an amount
sufficient to pay for the proposed discretionary project's proportionate
share of the required mitigation measures.
F. Public improvements requiring extension, expansion or widening of any
components of the road system shall not be deemed an acceptable mitigation
measure unless the City Council makes the following findings:
-PAGE 4 OF 17-
FINAL PLA"E l@ROWTEl ORDINANCE DRAFT DAT@ 08-Jan-1990
1. The proposed improvements maintain community and neighborhood
- character within the sphere of impacts and are consistent with community
1' plans. I
2, c The adverse impacts generated by the proposed discretionary
project cannot be fully mitigated by other mitigation measures, especially
improvements to the public transportation system.
G.
applicant certifies that the mitigation measures required by this section
Discretionary projects shall not be approved unless and until the
shall be completedl The requirement to pay assessments, fees or other
exactions, dedicate land, or otherwise provide improvements prior to
completion of the discretionary project to mitigate the impacts of the
1 discretionary project shall be included as a condition of approval where
appropriate.
dedicate land for and/or directly construct required improvements as a
condition of discretionary project approval.
Whenever feasible, private development shall be required to
H.
proportionate share of impacts generated by the proposed discretionary
project.
to provide public facilities or to pay assessments, impact fees or other
This section shall not require the applicant to mitigate more than th
-.
Nothing in this section shall relieve any applicant from the dut
exactions as required to offset the incremental impact of discretionary
projects upon transportation systems.
SEC. 69.5.0103 PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT ANALYSIS
A.
regional public facilities and services, including but not limited to
police and fire protection, schools, jails, parks, libraries, recreational
centers, sewage, solid waste, public transit, parking, and open space.
Level of service standards shall be established for all local and
-PAGE 5 OF 17-
FINAL PLANNED w ORDINANCE DRAPT DATE: @Jan-1990
B.. Prior to approval of a discretionary project a detailed public
facilities impact analysis of the proposed discretionary project shall be
completed.
which would result from the proposed discretionary project, including the
discretionary project's proportionate share of any cumulative impacts.
analysis shall also identify the specific new public facilities and
infrastructure, and specific improvements to existing facilities which
would be provided by the discretionary project.
I
The analysis shall identify the demand for public facilities
The
C. Discretionary projects shall not be approved unless and until the
applicant certifies that adequate public facilities shall be available
prior to or concurrent with the need for them and the timely provision of
such facilities is assured. The requirement to pay assessments, fees or
other exactions, dedicate land, or otherwise provide improvements prior to
completion of the discretionary project to mitigate the impacts of the
discretionary project shall be included as a condition of approval where
appropriate.
dedicate land for and/or directly construct required public facilities as a
condition of discretionary project approval.
Whenever feasible, private development shall be required to
D. Discretionary projects may be approved notwithstanding the concurrency
requirement of this section provided that all of the following findings can
be made, based upon substantial evidence:
1. Substantial pre-existing deficiencies exist which make it
infeasible to provide the required facilities on a timely basis.
2. Payment of the discretionary project's full proportionate share
of the.costs of financing public facilities required as a result of the
proposed development is guaranteed.
3. A public facilities plan and financing program to provide €or the
required facilities within a specified time has been approved by the City
Council.
-PAGE 6 OF 17-
FINAL PLA"ED(bm OmINANCE DRAET DATa8-Jan-1990
E.
proportionate share of impacts generated by the proposed discretionary
project.
to provide public facilities or to pay assessments, impact fees or other
exactions as required to offset the incremental impact of discretionary
projects upon local and regional public facilities and services.
This section shall not require the applicant to mitigate more than the -
Nothing in this section shall relieve any applicant from the duty
SEC. 69.5.0104 FISCAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS
A. It shall be City policy that new development shall pay its full
proportionate share of the costs of all public facilities reasonably
related to the burdens and needs generated by the development and that
existing residents of the City shall not be forced to subsidize new
': development through higher taxes, rates or fees.
B. Prior to approval of a discretionary project a detailed twenty-year L
fiscal impact analysis which estimates the following revenues and costs
associated with the proposal shall be completed.
include:
The analysis shall
1. The government revenue to be generated by the proposed
discretionary project, including but not limited to assessments, fees,
taxes and charges.
2. The anticipated capital improvement, operational, maintenance, and
replacement government costs for providing and servicing all new and
existing public facilities reasonably related to the needs and burdens
generated by the discretionary project.
C. Where the fiscal impact analysis indicates that the costs will exceed
the anticipated revenues, the applicant shall be required to fully mitigate
the fiscal deficiency to achieve fiscal balance.
-PAGE 7 OF 17-
FINAL PLANNED bETH ORDINANCE DRAFT DATE: d -Jan-1990
D,
following:
Acceptable fiscal mitigation measures may include one or more of the
The fiscal deficiencies of the discretionary project may be
L I c
'0 offset wit-h fiscal surpluses derived from other discretionary projects
within the same planning area.
2. Changes of intensity or use in the proposed discretionary project
to achieve fiscal balance.
3. Phasing and scheduling of the proposed discretionary project to
achieve fiscal balance.
4. Denial of the proposed discretionary project until such time
fiscal balance can be achieved.
@ Contribution of funds to appropriate public agencies in an amount
\
\./ adequate to achieve fiscal balance.
SEC. 69.5.0105 WATW IMPACTS ANALYSIS
A A. Prior to approval of a discretionary project approval a detailed water
/I - analysis shall be completed. The analysis shall describe: \
I 'l
-2
, 1. The discretionary projected incremental water usage caused by the .I
( proposed discretionary project.
2. The impacts of the proposed discretionary project on water supply
and rates.
3. The impacts of the proposed discretionary project - on the ability
\ of the region to meet Federal and Statewater quality-standards. ---__ - '. - - ,'i \/ -I _- pi-, ' I I -\) Jb - 9' / I - , , I :I
i 1, I/ 1- - - c, - / /
r
/ 1'
-PAGE 8 OF 17-
0 FINAL PLANNED a! OWTH ORDINANCE Dm DATE: 08-Jan-1990
B. Any adverse impacts shall be considered in the decision whether or not
to grant discretionary project approval and the applicant shall be require(
to use all economically feasible water conservation and reclamation
measures as a condition of approval.
SEC. 69.5.0106 AIR QUALITY IHPACTS ANALYSIS
A.
analysis shall be completed.
adverse impacts of the proposed discretionary project on the ability of the
region to meet Federal and State air quality standards.
Prior to approval of a discretionary project a detailed air quality
The analysis shall identify all significant
I - _-.-. ----- --- ___ - - __ -’ - --
B. Any adverse impacts shall be considered in the decision whether or not
to grant discretionary project approval and the applicant shall be requirec
to use all economically feasible measures to mitigate such impacts as a
condition of approval.
i
SEC. 69.5.0107 EXEHPTIONS
A.
this Article.
remodeling of, additions to or the replacement of an existing single family
home, or to landscaping, the construction of decks or fences or any other
home improvement where no new dwelling unit is created.
Existing single family homes are exempted from the requirements of
Nothing in this Article shall be construed to apply to the
€3.
the analyses identified in this Article provided that the applicant chooses
instead to rely upon standardized formulas which define the transportation
and public facilities needs of the proposed uses in the planning area and
upon standardized assessments and fees:
The following projects may be exempted from the requirement to submit
1. Very low and low income housing units, as defined by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development and certified by the City.
2. New non-residential development of 10,000 square feet of gross
floor area or less.
I
-PAGE 9 OF 17-
FINAL PLANNED * ORDINANCE DRAFT DATE.~-Jan-1990
, /-,
3. Residential projects of eight or fewer dwelling units on existing <= --' legal lots or with an approved subdivision or parcel map as of
January 11, 1990. l4
C. The City Council may exempt a discretionary project where, based upon
substantial evidence provided by the applicant, it is found that the
discretionary project would provide extraordinary public benefits to the
community, and is consistent with the applicable community plan and other
plans and programs. The City Council may hold no more thamhearings
each calendar year to consider such exemptions.
noticed of such a meeting as well as the exemptions to be considered and
shall be invited to give public comment.
D.) The City Council may exempt a discretionary project where, based upon
L The public shall be duly
h
I substantial evidence provided by the applicant, it is found that the
adverse impacts of the discretionary project could be adequately mitigated
by measures which are found not to be acceptable for reasons other than
their feasibility, consistency with applicable community plans or other
plans and programs, or effectiveness in mitigating the adverse impacts of
the discretionary project.
public hearing to consider such exemptions which shall be held concurrently
with the consolidated community plan amendment hearings.
be duly noticed of such a meeting as well as the exemptions to be
considered and shall be invited to give public comment.
The City Council shall hold no more than six
The public shall
E. The reconstruction of a structure which has been destroyed by fire,
acts of God, acts of public enemies or explosion shall be exempt from the
provisions of this Article, even it,,the q use or structure is nonconforming
and one hundred percent (100%) of the use or structure has been destroyed.
F.
provide public facilities or to pay assessments, impact fees or other
exactions as required to offset the incremental impact of discretionary
projects upon local and regional transportation systems or other public
facilities and services.
Nothing in this section shall relieve any applicant from the duty to
-PAGE 10 OF 17-
DATE e-Jan-1990 FINAL PIAWEYllTH UKDINANCE DRAPT
SEC. 69.5.0108 IMPLE rATION
A. Within six months of the effective date of this Article, the
methodologies to be used in measuring levels of service for each type of
public facility shall be adopted by the City Council. Levels of service
for roads and intersections shall be measured using the 1985 Highway
Capacity Manual methodology, or the Intersection Capacity Utilization
methodology, or subsequent versions or editions following City Council
approval.
B. Within nine months of the effective date of this Article, the City
Council shall establish the level of service standards required by this
Article.
level of service standards for all planning areas or land uses, The City
Council may establish the standards required by this Article at the minimum
level of service acceptable to the affected community of interest, provided
that nothing in this Article shall operate to prohibit any public agency or
private entity from providing public facilities or services at levels
better than the established standard.
Nothing in this Article shall require establishment of uniform -- -_ - - ______ - .- ~ *- - .- - ____..-_-- - ---- -___- -_
C. The City Council may, in its discretion, review and revise the level
of service standards required by this Article, provided that no level of
service shall be revised more often than once in any five-year period, and
that each standard shall be reviewed every ten years.
D.
Council shall review and amend City Council Policies, the Municipal Code
and other ordinances, and administrative regulations and guidelines to
achieve conformance with this Article.
Within eighteen months of the effective date of this Article the City
----- -
E.
Article.
Municipal Code or other ordinances and regulations, the terms of the
Article shall prevail over all other enactments. All zoning ordinances or
other land use regulations shall be amended to render them consistent with
/ /
j -r
All discretionary project approvals must be consistent with this
Where this Article is in conflict with other aspects of the
this Article. I 'r I .. I' , #' , ,',
(!IilI {
I
-PAGE 11 OF 17-
FINAL PLANNED a VTH ORDINANCE DRAFT DATE. a 8-Jan-1990
F. 1 In order to promote interjurisdictional cooperation and assure
regional consistency the City Council may, where appropriate, incorporate
the standards and guidelines of regional plans, as established by the
Regional'Planning and Growth Management Review Board, San Diego County
Transportation Commission and other agencies, into the standards, formulas,
assessments and fees required by this section.
- :/ i
G.
required by this Article.
The City Manager shall be responsible for performance of the analyses
1. The City Manager shall maintain a list of "independent qualified
firms" to perform the analyses required by this Article. Independent
,-
1 qualified firms must be deemed by the City Manager to be technically
competent to perform the requisite analyses and free of any economic
conflict of interest.
if it has any direct or indirect economic interest in an applicant's
project or if it is owned in whole or in part by an individual or firm witi-
a direct economic interest in development within the City.
Manager shall select and supervise firms from the list to conduct the
requisite analyses.
No firm may be deemed free of conflict of interest
The City
3 Where it can be shown that City staff can perform the analyses
required by this Article at a total cost equal to or less than the cost of
retaining independent qualified firms, taking into consideration personnel,
non-personal and administrative costs, the City Manager may direct that thc
required analyses be performed by City staff.
3, The applicant shall reimburse the City for the full cost of
administering the program and carrying out the analyses.
H. The requirements of this Article apply on a City-wide basis to all nec
discretionary projects.
-PAGE 12 OF 17-
FINAL PLANNED WTH ORDINANCE Dm DA-8-Jan-1990 ." 1. All proposed General Plan amendments, community plan amendments,
" specific plans, tentative maps, redevelopment plans, disposition and
development agreements, new development agreements, or other entitlements
for use shall be consistent with this Article.
7 J.
Council shall adopt interim assessment and fee schedules.
shall include assessments and fees for all local and regional
Withirf one month of the effective date Qf this Article the City
These schedules
transportation and public facility improvements required to service new
development.
standardized formulas, assessments and fees required by this Article, no
project shall be approved unless, as a condition of approval, the applicant
agrees to pay the the standardized assessments, fees or other exactions
Prior to the adoption of the level of service standards,
1 required by this Article. The interim assessment and fee established by
this paragraph are to be paid at the time of building permit issuance as a
credit against the standardized assessments, fees or other exactions
required by this Article.
exactions adopted by the City Council are less than the interim assessments
and fees established by this paragraph, the City shall, within ninety days
of their adoption, deduct the standardized assessments, fees and other
exactions from the interim assessments and fees collected and refund the
balance to the applicant.
If the standardized assessments, fees and other
K.
shall adopt standardized formulas, assessments and fees for different
public facilities in the different planning areas of the City and for
different types of structures andlor land uses.
facilities and the payment of Facility Benefit Assessments, Facility
Financing Plans, Development Impact Fees, interim assessments and fees, or
other facilities, assessments, fees and exactions, shall be credited
towards payment of the standardized assessments and fees required by this
paragraph.
Within one year of the effective date of this Article the City Council
The provision of public
-PAGE 13 OF 17-
FINAL PLANNED WTH ORDINANCE DRAFT DATE 8- ~a- 19 90 0 L.
applicants shall be appropriated and expended in a timely fashion and €or
no other purpose than for which they were originally exacted, pursuant to
state law.
expenditure of assessments, fees and exactions upon the planning,
initiation or construction of any public facility which has been included
in a capital improvements program adopted by any public agency whose
jurisdiction lies wholly or partially within the City and which has been
found to be consistent with the City's General Plan by the City Council,
pursuant to Article 7 (commencing at 5 65400) of Division 1 of Title 7 of
the California Government Code, including but not limited to the
improvement of public roads and highways or public transit sys terns
identified in the regional transportation plan and regional transportation
improvement program adopted pursuant to Chapter 2.5 (commencing at 5 65080)
of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code.
Assessments, fees and exactions collected by the City from development -
Nothing in this Article shall be construed to prohibit the
*'
M.
Assessments, Facility Financing Plans, Development Impact Fees, or other
facilities, assessments, fees or other exactions as provided for under a
development agreement approved prior to the effective date of this Article
shall count towards partial or complete fulfillment of the requirements of
this Article.
The provision of public facilities and the payment of Facility Benefit
N.
payment of assessments, fees or other exactions, projects shall be required
to dedicate land for and/or directly construct required public facilities
as a condition of project approval, whenever feasible.
provides public facilities by such dedication and/or "turnkey" construction
in excess of the demand generated by the project, the City shall provide
for reimbursement, credit against other mitigation requirements,
assessments, fees and exactions, or other Compensation, as appropriate.
It shall be the policy of the City Council that, in preference to the
Where a project
-PAGE 14 OF 17-
FINAL PLANNEDem ORDINANCE DW DATE, a -Jan-1990
SEC. 69.5.0109 DEFINITIONS
A. As used in this Article, "Project" means the whole of an action which
has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment,
directly--or ultimately, that is any of the following:
1. An activity directly undertaken by any City agency.
2. An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or
in part through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of
assistance from one or more City agencies.
3. An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease,
I permit, license, certificate, of other entitlement for use by one or more
City agencies.
The term "project" refers to the activity which is being approved and which
may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies.
The term "project" does not mean each separate governmental approval.
B.
defined as a project which requires the exercise of judgment, deliberation,
or decision on the part of a City agency in the process of approving or
disapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where
the city agency merely has to determine whether there has been conformity
with applicable statutes, ordinances or regulations.
As used in this Articie, "Discretionary projectt1 means an activity
-PAGE 15 OF 17-
PINU PLA"EDeVTH OmINma Dm DA A8-Jan-1990
SEC. 69.5.0110 THE POVERS OF OTHER POLJ3"TCfi JURISDICI'IONS SU NOT BE
- PREEHPTED
A. The standards and analyses required by this Article are for the
purpose 0-f regulating development under the jurisdiction of the City.
Nothing in this Article shall require the state or any other political
jurisdiction to make any improvements to the road system! to the public
transportation system, or to any public facilities or water resources
within their jurisdiction, or in any other way preempt the powers of the
state or other political jurisdictions.
B.
jurisdiction to approve any proposed mitigation measures.
Nothing in this Article shall require the City or any other political
..
1
SEC. 69.5.0111 PROPERTY RIGHTS SHALL BE PROTECTED
Nothing in this Article shall operate to deprive any landowner of
substantially all economic use of the property or otherwise constitute an
unconstitutional taking withaut compensation. If application of any of thc
provisions of this Article to a specific project would create a taking,
then pursuant to this Article, the City Council may allow additional land
uses or otherwise adjust permit requirements, but only to the extent
necessary to avoid such unconstitutional taking.
uses or other adjustments shall be designated to carry out the goals and
provision of the Article to the maximum extent feasible.
Any such additional land
I
-PAGE 16 OF 17-
7VTH ORDINANCE DRAPT DATE e- ~a- 19 90
SEC. 69.5.0112 PINa pm3 SE ILITY
, If any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid by a court, the
remaining portions are to be considered valid. If any portion of this
the exercise of its discretion, to enact alternative ordinances and/or
regulations which, to the maximum extent permitted by law:
ordinance is declared invalid, the City Council is hereby committed, within
A. Carry out the purpose of the invalidated provision;
B. Utilize the approach of the invalidated provision; and
. C. Duplicate the results of the application of the invalidated
provision.
-PAGE 17 OF 17-
0
(0-90-??? )
0
ORDINANCE NUMBER 0- (NEV SERIES) f- ADOPTED ON
AN-ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER X, ARTICLE 1, DIVISION 4 OF THE
SAN DIEGO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 101.0405.5, ESTABLISHING
A WATER QUALITY ZONE.
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of The City of San Diego, as follows!
Section 1. That Chapter X, Article 1, Division 4 of the San Diego,
Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended by adding
Section 101.0405.5 "Water Quality Zone", to read as follows:
1
SEC. 101.0405.5 VATKR QUALITY ZONE ("VQ")
A. PURPOSE AND INTENT
It is the purpose of the "WQ" zone to protect water quality in
reservoirs within the City which are used to store potable water, includl
Lake Hodges, Miramar Lake, and Lake Hurray.
B. BOUNDARIES
Within the City, where the average slope from the highest water mar
of the reservoir to the nearest ridge line is less than fifteen percent
(15.0%), the "YO" zone shall extend 500 feet from the high water mark of
the reservoir or to the top of the nearest ridge line, whichever is les:
Within the City, where the average slope from the highest water mark of
reservoir to the nearest ridge line is greater or equal to fifteen percc
. (15.0%), the "WQ'l zone shall extend 2500 feet from the high water mark (
the reservoir or 200 feet beyond the top of the nearest ridge line,
whichever is less.
which has not been developed for non-agricultural use, and to all public
property .
The "WQ" zone shall apply only to private property
-PAGE 1 OF 2-
0 0
. ' c. PERMITTED USES
No structure or improvement or portion thereof shall be erected,
converted, constructed, established, altered or enlarged, nor shall any
premise be used, except for one or more of the following purposes:
1. Public utility facilities associated with the operation of the
reservoir.
2. Public parks.
3. Single family dwellings at a maximum density of one unit for eac
.. ten acres.
D. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
1. Land alteration and grading shall be prohibited except where
absolutely necessary to provide for individual building pads and access
roadways.
2. Development shall not be permitted in any portion of the "WQ"
zone unless the City makes a specific finding that such development poses
no threat to the quality of the City's drinking water.
3. For public parks, the development plans shall be approved by th
City Council, consistent with the restrictions of this section.
4. For single family dwellings, the development regulations shall
those of the A-1-10 zone, except:
a. Development shall not be permitted on slopes with a gradic
of 25% or greater unless the landowner will be deprived of substantially
all economic use of the property.
b. Planned Residential Developments and Rural Cluster
Developments shall not be permitted within the "WQ" zone.
-PAGE 2 OF 2-
e
City of San Diego
MEMORANDUM
e
Date: January 5, 1990
To : Distribution
From: Planning Department
Subj: Missing page on the Special City Council Meeting of
January 11, 1990
Attached is a missing page that was inadvertently left
off of Planning Department Report to City Council on January 11, 1990 regarding the Issue Identification and
Analysis of the Planned Growth Initiative (Plan!) and the
San Diego 2000 Initiative for Special City Council Meeting
of January 11, 1990.
a e
SECTION 2B: PUBLIC FACILITIES SHALL BE AVAILABLE WHEN NEEDED
PUBLIC FACILITY ISSUE 1: The initiative calls for the City
establish level of service standards for a variety of local
regional facilities such as police, fire, parks, librari recreational centers, sewers, solid waste, parking and open spa
TO what extent is it feasible for the City to establish standa
for these facilities?
DISCUSSION: The City currently establishes Citywide standa
for parks, library service areas (not size), and fire and pol
services. The initiative would require the City to deb standards for additional facilities within its jurisdiction s as sewage, solid waste, parking, and open space. While
General Plan does not define standards for these facilities,
community plans do identify community specific needs
recreational centers and open space, as well as other commur facilities. Furthermore, adopted parking standards
residential, commercial, and industrial uses already exj
Citywide standards for such facilities as sewers and solid w; may need to be devised, although it is uncertain as to
usefulness of such standards.
PUBLIC FACILITY ISSUE 2: The initiative calls for the City
establish level of service standards for local and regional pul
facilities. To what extent can and should the City be responsj
for ensuring the adequacy of facilities under the prir jurisdiction of another agency, such as schools and jails?
Since schools and jails are basic service required by residt
Citywide, the City has a fundamental interest in resolving
The City's ability to go beyond Council Policy 601
"Availability of Schools" or a modified version of that polic;
unclear. The legal ramifications of this question would reqi review by the City Attorney.
The question of jail capacity also has direct effect on the (
and its residents, and like schools is directly impacted by
growth of our population. Given consideration of the lack funding alternatives available to the County, City involvemen worthy of consideration. Based on the identified mechanisi proportionate share development assessments, the City WI
attempt to assure timely provision of critical regional as we1
community facilities.
PUBLIC FACILITY ISSUE 3: What options does the City have
implementing public facility concurrency standards?
DISCUSSION: Provisions of public facilities concurrent with is already City policy. The problem is how does the City actu do it, particularly in the Urbanized Areas.
In the Urbanized Areas, the City does levy impact fees to fin
anticipated lack of facilities resulting from new developmt
5
a 0
THE PLANNED GROWTH INITIATIVE
TO the Honorable Council of The City of San Diego, California: We, the undersigned registered voters of The Ciry (
Diego, California, by this petition hereby respectfully propose the following legislation be adopted by the Council or subm
registered voters of The City of San Diego for their adoption or rejection.
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE PETITION
Notice is hereby given of the intention of the persons whose names appear hereon to circulate the petition within tl
of Los Angeles and to ensure that existing residents of San Diego will not be forced to subsidize new development through
taxes, rates, and fees.
SECTTON I: THE PURPOSE IS TO PREVENT THE LOS ANGELIZATION OF 3AN DIEGO
The purpose of this Measure is to prevent San Diego from becoming an overcrowded, gridlocked, crime-ridden, and water
suburb of Los Angeles. To stop the Los Angelization of San Diego and thereby protect the public health, safety, and welf;
h/ieaure establishes the following planning principles and provides for their strict enforcement:
0 New development must not result in severe traffic congestion or gridlock on our freeways, highways, and streets.
Public facilities necessary to serve new development must be provided prior to or concurrent with the need for tk
to ensure that our neighborhoods have adequate parks and libraries; our communities have adequate police prote
crowded and understaffed schools that breed mediocriq.
Existing residents of San Diego must not be forced to subsidize new development through higher taxes, higher wa
charges, or increases in other rates and fees. Therefore, new development must pay its full proportionate share of
additional public facilities necessary to serve the new development.
Sap, Diego. The purpose is to prevent San Diego from becoming an overcrowded, gridlocked, crime-ridden, and water-stai
gang violence, drugs, and crime; and our children are educated in well-staffed schools of excellence rather than il
0 New development must promote water conservation and must not contribute to future water problems.
SECTION 2: THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN
This Measure amends the General Plan of the City of San Diego (“City”) to incorporate the following provisions:
1. The City shall establish traffic congestion standards for all components of the road system, including but not limited to
highways, arterials, major streets, and collector streets. Standards shall be set at level of service “C” or better during off-pe
and ‘ID” or better during peak hours. Levels of service shall be measured by the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, or any SL
edition thereof.
2. All applications for a discretionary permit or discretionary approval shall include a detailed traffic congestion analysis w
identifies all significant adverse impacts of the proposed new development upon the established standards, including the a
proportionate share of any cumulative impacts. If adverse impacts from the applicant’s proposed development would causi
level(s) of service of any component(s) of the road system to fall below the established standard(s) or if adverse impact5 wI
the Ieve[(s) of service to fall further below the established standardh) in the case that the standard(s) are not currently be
applicant shall be required to fully mitigate such impacts. 3. Acceptable mitigation measures may include a combination of one or more of the following: (a) improvements to the p
portation, bikeway, and/or road systems; (b) changes in density; (c) changes in use to achieve a better balance between jol
housing; (d) a phasing and scheduling plan; (e) contribution of fees to the appropriate controlling City and/or other gover
agencies in an amount sufficient to pay for the applicant’s proportionate share of the required mitigation measures.
4. Applications for discretionary permits or approvals shall not be apprived by the City unless and until the applicant cert
the mitigation measures required by subsections 2 and 3 shall be completed. Impact fees, bonds, and/or other similar finan
guarantees shall be required where appropriate. Whenever feasible, the City shall require private development to dedicate
and/or directly construct required improvements as a condition of discretionary approval. 5. This section shall not require the applicant to mitigate more than the applicant’s proportionate share of impacts general
applicant’s new development.
1. The City shall establish level of service standards for local and regional public facilities, including but not limited td pol
fire, jails, - parks, .--. libraries ---L.. recreational centers, sewage, solid waste, public transit,Eking, and open space. For each new
merit project, the City shall, at the applicant’s expense, define the demand for these faxities and determine the specific r
facilities and specific improvements to existing facilities necessitated by the development project.
2. All applications for a discretionary permit or discretionary approval must certify that adequate public facilities shall be a
of such facilities is assured. Impact fees, bonds, and/or other similar financial guarantees shall be required where appropria
ever feasible, the City shall require private development to dedicate land for and/or directly construct required public facil
condition of discretionary approval.
3. The City may approve any application for discretionary permits oi approvals which does not fulfill the concurrency reqL
subsection 2 provided however that: (a) the City makes findings that substantial pre-existing deficiencies exist which mak
feasible to provide the required facilities on a timely basis; (b) the City has developed a plan to provide for the required fa(
(c) the applicant pays his or her full proportionate share of the costs of financing the required public facilities.
A: NEW DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION
B: PUBLIC FACILITIES SHALL BE AVAILABLE WHEN NEEDED
,,--
prior to or concurrent with the need for them. The City shall not grant an applicant’s approval until and unless the time]
a 0 -.
D. The requirements of this Measure apply on a City-wide basis to all new residential, commercial, and industrial develop)
Dixretionary permits and approvals include, but are not limited to: tentative maps, vesting tentative maps, conditional us
parcel maps, development agreements, building permits, grading permits, and land development permits. The provision o
facilities and the payment of Facility Benefit Assessments, Facility Financing Plans, Development Impact Fees, or other re
facilities or fees as provided for under a development agreement approved prior to the effective date of this Measure shall (
towards partial fulfiliment of the requirements of this Measure. Any general plan amendments, community plan amen&
plans, tentative maps, iedevelopment plans, disposition and development agreements, new development agreements, or 01
entitlements for use shall be, or shall be made, consistent with this Measure.
SECTION 5: THE POWERS OF,OTHER POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS SHALL NOT BE PREEMPTED
A. The standards and analyses required by this Measure are for the purpose of regulating development under the jurisdictj
City. Nothing in this Measure shall: (a) require the state or any other political jurisdiction to make any improvements tC
system, to the public transportation system, or to any public facilities or water resources within their jurisdiction; or (b) ir
way preempt the powers of the state or other political jurisdictions.
B. Nothing in this Measure shall require the City or any other political jurisdiction to approve any proposed mitigation n
Expansion or widening of any component(s) of the road system shall not be deemed an acceptable mitigation measure ur
Council makes findings that: (a) the proposed expansion or widening maintains community and neighborhood character
sphere of impacts and is consistent with community plans; and (b) the adverse impacts generated by the proposed project
SECTION 6: PROPERTY RIGHTS SHALL BE PROTECTED
Nothing in this Measure shall operate to deprive any landowner of substantially all of the economic use of his or her pro
othenvise constitute an unconstitutional taking without compensation. If application of any of the provisions of this lvh
specific project would create a taking, then pursuant to this Measure, the City Council may allow additional land uses 01
adjust permit requirements, but only to the extent necessary to avoid such unconstitutional taking. Any such additional
other adjustments shall be designated to carry out the goals and provisions of this Measure to the maximum extent feasit
SECTION 7: SEVERABILITY If any portion of this Measure is declared invalid by a court, the remaining portions are to be considered valid. If any PO
kfeasure is so declared invalid, the City Council is hereby requested within the exercise of its discretion to enact alterria
Plan amendments which to the maximum extent permitted by law: (a) carry Out the purpose of the invalidated provisior
the approach of the invalidated provision; and (c) duplicate the results of application of the invalidated provision.
SECTION 8: AMENDMENT OR REPEAL
This Measure may be amended or repealed only by the voters at a City election.
’ , fully mitigated by other mitigation measures, especially improvements to the public transportation system.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
The City of San Diego is growing at an extremely rapid rate. This inadequately planned and poorly managed ,or01
grave threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Our roads are becoming increasingly congested and will soon resemble the gridlocked freeways, highways, and stre
Angeles. Many of ou1- communities do not have adequate parks, libraries, and other public facilities. Our children are b
learn in overcrowded schools. The crime rate and gang violence are skyrocketing largely because our courts, jails, and p
are severely overburdened by growth.
Moreover, because new development does not pay its full proportionate share of the costs it imposes on our City, 3
residents are being forced to subsidize this new development through higher taxes such as the increased sales tax; throu:
for water, sewer, and other services; and through higher fees.
The Planned Growth Initiative establishes fair and reasonable standards for traffic, public facilities, fiscal respons
water and requires that new development projects meet these standards before they can proceed. If enacted, this initial
0 Ensure that new development does not result in LOS Angeles-style traffic congestion on our freeways, highxi
Require that public facilities such as police and fire protection and schools are provided prior to or concurrt
Mandate that new development pay its full and fair share of the costs of growth so that existing residents w
Help preserve San Diego’s open space and protect our water resources.
. . streets;
forced to subsidize new development through higher taxes, rates, or fees;
Date: October 29, 1989 Prevent Los Angelization Now! (PLAN!) m& Signed:
..
Mark Zerbe, Treasurer
4&7LvL--f
Peter Navarro, Chairman
I
- ---- --. -- r Lvi*it nr,irrds l -- %*A\\/ -r 111 ..-._- .... .U,,&&a*. , a
NW'3CE (IF INTENTION TO CIKCU~,A'~;F; PE.:?'ITION
Notice I3 hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of the intention to Circulate t]
petition within the City of San Diego for the purpose of enacting the Traffic Control at Comprehensive GroMh Management Initiative.
I a
MamgcrHent Mtiative",
11. Purpose and Intent
Title This measure shall be known as the Traffic Conmf and Comp&cnsjvg Grow
A, The people of the City of san Diego flnd and declare that;
1. The qudity of life in the City uf San Dicgo is increasingly threatened by traf
congestion, air and water pollution, inadequate public facilities and other growth rela
probterns.
2. $an Diego City needs a worhble, forward-thinking plan to properiy control futl
growth and help alleviate existing ovemowding problems, 3. The purpose of this measure is to create theTraffic Conttol and Comphens Growth Management Plan which recognizes tbat while the problems stemming fn
rapid growth may vary from traffic to air pollution, they ate intmlated and nausi*
a comprehensive sohlion, which cncouragcs the City of San Diego to work yi
adjacent jurisdctions to solve regional problems.
4. The Plan outlines a comprehensive, long mge program that will ensum that San Di
rem&$ a safe, comfwble and convenient place to live ROW and into the ncxtttnk
5. ~e ~j;ur will expedite compIction of th4 Ip~gional Tra~~portati~n System that 1
designed by traffic experts to meet the transportadon needs of ow rtgion. h@gner
Supplement the half-cent sates tax firnding, this plan will bvfd highways, m&s,
mass transit facilities. New funds authorid by this mawe fa Ba~~~poMon wil
paid for by new development.
6. ne Plan will further alleviate traffic congestion by requiting new development
large employers to prepare voluntary peak hour traffic Eduction plans to encuu
employees to use Van pk4 and other dkmative means Of cammuting. 7, The Plan will establish city-wide bash resourcb recovery and curbside myc pmgrams to help conserve dwindling natural resuwces. Recycling is also a t
effective afkmative to bdfifling of solid mte that saves taxpayers money. 8, The Plan will require det&kd analyses of the pmj Wed impact of new dcvdopmer
air and water quality. 9, To protect San Diego's future watet supplies, the Plan will requirs the City to pre
coq&nsive water ansennation and warn recfmtionplans.
10. TO CQnSmt imprtant wildlife habitat, the Plan Will pravide far Ch0 CdOn
financing of Habitat Conservation Districts.
11. me Plan will requite deveIopers to consmct park$ libraries, fire stations and 1
public facilities for new development ConcuntYtt with need Of COnstNctbn wi curtailed Developen will also be quted PO reserve land or contribute fa to pn
for child day care sites necessary to Scrve development.
J'
J
(1)
---_ __ -------_..-____ ----____ --_
- -. -r”bLY’ 11- !ne rian Will Ilv! ’ u’ b‘kr bilkL1dla C&~~~~l~~b by1 LLIC, LIII Ilbrblr- --
by requiring an &I recto taxpayers detailing theogress the city ha mad complying with !be components of the Traffic COneOl and Comprehensive Growl
Mmagcment Plan.
13. Finally, the Plan places the cost of new development squarely on the shovlders of ne1
development, not the taxpayer.
Traific Control and Comprehensive Growth Management Plarl A. This memre amends tho Progress Guide and General Plan of the Citx gf $an Diego
incopmte the Traffic control and Cornwhenshe Growth Management Plan which sh: contain the following components:
1 , (&p$et{on of the Regional Tmn~nati&~:
111.
a. Q?nlptehensiue Trpmgg?g&jtion Impact Fee; Require new dcvelopment to pa!
benefit assessment fee for transportation facilities tu accelerate CornpIetion bf t
Regional Transporktion Plan, including brolley facilities and ~fanspodon facilit
in established nefghborhoods. The City Is ~RCUUE~~C~ to work with other cities a the County to establish similar benefit assessment foe props to compkment I City’s efforts.
b. Sfflc Demand ManaEement Pr- Require new development and Ia
employers to prepare pfms to reduce the proportion of peak hour commuters H
drive done, VQ~UII~IY compliance with the plan by commuters slsdl be encouq
thmugh incentives and public education.
2, Protectin? Future Watt r Suw Require preparation of comprehensive wa
reclamation and conseation plans and quire that new devdopmctlt use relair
water in common landsmped areas. 3, curbside Trash Rq- Establish city-wide trash recycling programs
require that new development provide hash storsge &e% for recycIable makids,
4. Air OU&V Aswance Plana; As a condition of project apprpval require r
development to provide a detailed analysis ofthe impacts of tk pmpsed dcveloprr
on the ability of the region to me Federal and Stare air quality standards. 5. !&!a€ r Oualitv &su~e Plans; A5 a condition of project appmal requite l
J
&v&pment to provide a detaiied an;rly$s of the impacts ofthe proposed dme1oPfl
on tJie ability of the region to meet Wed and State water qdiQ stm&dq. 6. 9 ild Care Site Pro~q~n Require new devdopment to rtst?Iye ?and of Contribute
to provide for child day care sites neicessary a0 Serve the development. 7. fiblie Fac@tv Conm~t W ith Need: Require new development to directry cons
community facilities necessary to serve proposed development concurrent with fie
cUJtai1 development app%d% 8, Fadlities Adeqyp azl d Fiscal&~~ct And- Require dew developme
provide 8 detailed fiscal impact analysts contrasting the revenues generated b: pmposed development and the anticipated costs for p#d&g and servicing ail P
fxility nceds caused by the development 9. Sensitive lands gnd Habitat Con~ervatjpn; Require the City to create ha
conservation plans and districts to acquire land which suppns m-6 or enQnl
species of animals Or phts.
10. musing Affordability; Require the City to review and modify existing ordin; policifi-md procedures which have an effeG on afk&le housing.
J
(21
--- __ -
to which the C' as complied with the CQltIpOnent the 'Irarrlc c.ontroi a
8, Each of these components shall be enacted in accordance with the provisions contained
Comprehensive - -P rowth Management plan. *
the remainder of this measure. Completion of the Ragionat Transportatiosi System
1 e- Thor~Mwes nd &kk&ttruA.b~ The City of Ssn Diego shall enact
. ordinance requiring new development to pay a benefit assessment fee as a conditior the issuance ofa building prmit to defray the actual or estimated cost of constructing
accelerating tho completion of transportation facilities of City-wide or regic
significance as identified in Section IV. A. 4., and consistent with the provision!
Section fV. A. 5. b. Benefit assessment fee revenue shdl be committed for
transportation facilides Identified In Section fiV. A. 4. within five years of receipt
2. citi-m ' me Clty of San Diego shall e&blii
Cjtiren's ~ec~niCaf_Ovcrsight Committee comprised of Seven technical eq
inchding one representadve from each of the following; thc pubiic works contrac
profession, the San Diego County Taxpayer's Association, the development indu
and community planning groups; and three additional persons representing thc gtr
public. The committee shall advise the San Diego City Covncif concerning acu]ation, collecfion, and expenditure of benefit assessment fee revenues, inch project priorities, program devefoprnent, and the ahnual repods and a&aonl
required by the Taxpayer Accountabifhy section. Rem of the Citizen's Tech
Oversight Committee shall be provided to the San Diego City Cowdl and to thf
Diego County Grand Jury. 3, cooperativ_e Amngernentx In order to promote regional cooperation 1x1 the ti
completion of the Regional Transportation Plan, it is the intent of this rnwure th:
City of San Diego consummate one or more cooperathe anangements with adji
jurisdictions to partially or fully construct, expand M accderatt the completi msportarim fkilities of Citywide or rcgionai significance 8s identified in Se~cii~
A. 4.. through the joint imposition of benefit assessment fees OT sirnilat impact
consistent with the provisions of this measure.
4. Tranzpostat imtomdor Prqiec~~: The benefit assessment fes of similar imp%
paid for by ncw devefoprnent shall be used for the construction, expansi acceleration of the projects dexribed below md as depfcted in Figure 1: P. piisrity Est -Count- i 'd R0iSlr;;ts:
Iv, A, Comprehensive Transportation Impact Fee
I. SR 52 (1-15 to SR 67)
2, SR 125 (1-8 to South POW~Y Mfial-gA)
1. SR 56 (1-5 to SR-125)
.
b. fi~rity Mi&Count~Tm~tim CQ
2. Cunino Ruiz (T>cl Dionr Highway to SR 56)
4. SR 125 (South Poway Putefb.l-8A to SR 52) 3. south Poway Artetid-8A (145 to SR 125)
C. PrioritvJauth Qurttv Tmsmmdo&mifbr h-iecq: 1. SR 225 (SR54to I-WS) *
2, SR 905 (1-805 to SR 125)
3. SR 905 (SR 125 to Border Crossing)
(3)
aw PrO!ecQ: ine L14y Vk an,, u v d - r- d. Priority Tta ;
San diepo=?msportation Cornmi ssion,& Metmpoli t;rn Tran
Development bud ad the North County Tmsit Development 5md to acceler; completion of transporntion facilities of regional benefit, irtciuding troflcy routr
cornmuter rail projects, and other facilities necessaxy to reduce COngeStiol1 tflrou tnffic demand management programs. Priority in the expenditure of bene
~ assessment fees levewe$ shd h? given to constructing, ananding or a~~~ltmti
projecu in the following corridon:
Miramadh4ira Ma Corridor (University City to 1-15]
The I- 15 Conidor (On- City to bndido)
South Bay Cotridor (1-5 to SR 125)
Benefit arsesment fe9 collected for the purpose of completing or accelera
transit facilities may be conveyed to the appropriate msit authority, e. &cjkities in Esbblished Neiehborha The City of San Diego shall prep?
plan which identifies regionally significant transportation facilities in urban
communities which require construction, expansion OT rthabilitation as a resu
dernmds caused by new development. Annually the City Council shall alloca
to 10% of the annual benefits aqsessrnent fet revenues, as authorized in Swtb A, l,, f9r c~~b~cdon, expansion or rehabifitadon ofthe facilities identified i
urbanized ;ueaflan.
5, Tmef Accountability; The collection and expenditure of fees by the City o
Diego shall adhere to the following rsqutrements to ensure that public revmuc
a. 'J&puer Accountab- In order to promote efficient use of thr
collected to build the transportation facilities identified in ahis measure, the C
San Diego shdl prepare an annual audit accounting for such funds. The audii be known as tha Taxpayer Accountability Repoa It shall include, but I limited to, a project status report evaluating progress towards the timely corn[
of designated transption facilities. b. &e.diflo Cab * The benefit assessment fee necestary to fwd the P
Transportation Conidor Projects and Riocity Tra~~it addor Projects sh
excwd $200 per Average Daily Trip, adjusfed anrrudly according
bgineerfng News Record cost of construction hdex (bs Angeles-San f This limitation applies to exactions imposed to fiance the Priority T~SPC
Corridor Projects and Priority Transit &x-dat bjek i&n!!fied in this l7
snd docs not apply to exactions for Iezaf-serving fadlitie or improvement
m imposed as a condition of development appro~d~ Wefop are encc
to drrectIy CORS~TUC~ Priority Transportation Corridor Mjects in excha
appropriate credits for the payments Qf benefits assessment fe obligations. c. l&&&mJceofE ffoc It is the purp~se of *0 Comprehmsive Tmsp
impact Fee Program to supplement existing Id finch being used 10 impie!
Regional 7~nsp6rt;l tiarl Plan. The City of San Wee0 sfrall afidly mak minimum the Same level of 1gca.l dixrtetionary funds expended for $Bets l
purposes as defined in the Snn Diego Transportation Imprgvement : Ordinance and Expenditlire Program. An annual independent audit
conducted to verify that the maintenance of effort requhenb are met.
-
pmperly collected and spent /
(4)
0. I,lmlranOn QL o~~d~['Jg: LVsL); nevcnues may t)c IWGU LYI XUL~~AE~, wage benefits, ov tc. d, auditing afld those sewices in m ing contractuai Semic
necessaty to administer implementation of this measure; however, in do case, sh:
such expenditures exceed one percent of the annual reyedue provided by th
measure. AR annual independent audit shall be conducted to =sure that revenu
e. U&&Z.&~S: It is the pu'pose of the Comprehensive TranJportadod Impact F
- - Rogram to supplement funds cumndy or prospectively available hrn the fede
govmment, or the State of Cdifmia or agencies created or authoked by the gta
and to maximize grant funding by using fee revenues to Ievmgc grant progran
The fee revenues are designed to qualify as self help funds under SB 140. kcc
as necessary to satisfy debt obligations secured by benefit assessment fee revenu
such revenues shall not be allocated for any state highway projects until the City
$an Diego has certified that the City is receiving, at a minimum, its far share
highway funds from the state as defined in the Sarr Ditgo Trdasportatl Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Rogram,
B. _Con=stion Reduction and Traffic Demand M,grjam To reduce theproport
of commuters who drive alone during peak commuter hours, the City of San Diego sf enact a comprehensive ped period Traffic Demand Managcmtnt (TDM) Progr
containing the following components: 1, Standwdy; The City shall establish Mve Alone Rate god that the propofion of p
hour commuters pet worksite who drive alone not exceed 55% of the totat work
commuters by the year 1996. 2. Participating ErnpIoyt~ Plans: The City of Sm Diego shall enact an ordinance requb
large employers to establish TDhl Information centers, transportidon coordinators,
orientation programs to encourage use of alternative means of transportat*
Voluntary employee cornpfiante shdI be enmuraged through incentives and pu
education. Participating employers shall fife an annual report identitying effort
achieve th8 ?Dbf program standards. 3, AItcmativC C QpJ&&& Participating employer3 may authorire a Transporn
Management Association (TMA) to prepwe md execute a TDM Pb within the Th geographical ~fa, which will enable participating employers, on average, to mer TDM program standards.
4, New Develop~e& Applica6ons for aon-residential pmjactJ, which exceed 2$
square feet, shall submit a plan to the City of San Diego which shall identifi
techniques and strategies by which the proposed project can attain the Traffic Der
Management Program goals, within ffve years of OCCU~UX~.
1. The City of San Bego shall establish 8 mer reclamation god.
2. To at#& this goal, the City of San sego shair enact 8 Water Rectmatiori Faci Master PIan which shalt delheatc the location and size of future facilitie
conveyance, treatment, and use of reclaimed warn, consistent with the @an< prpgnms of the County Water Autfidty.
adoption of the Water Reclamation Facilities Master Plan, the City of San Diego
enact an ordinance requiring instatlation of reclaimed water delivery system! condition of approval of discretionary projects, whera ftzsible. Th.e water pla
expended are necessary and responsible.
i v P \Veter Reclamation and Conservation
A, Water Reclamation RW
3 Na@iBah*at ion .for ~ew evelaprnents Consistent with, md UP
(5)
LVU.J~J, ynrn~, &IF;SW P landscaping, gr !BE ehs. and cerneterie$ and for art1 &l lakes &d ~an-ma
area landscapin
decOmtive ponds where public contact is ptohibi\g&
0 turf-reiarea Taciiities, SUcn as,
S, Water Conservation Program
1. The City of San Diego shall establish a per caplta water consmation god, TO att;
this goal, the City of San Diego shall erlact a comprehensive Wakr Conservati
&gram which shall:
a. Require instahtion water saving fixtures and dmugfiS tolerant common a
b. Require that City owned facilities be retrofitted with water saving fikture3, wh
c, Provide incentive$ for property owners to retrofit ultra low flush toikts and wz
J
bd-ping, as a condition of appmvd ofdiscretfonq projaj.
cost effective,
savfng flxtures.
VI, Curbside Recycling Program
A, The City of Sa Diego shdl establish 8 goal for the recovery of targeted recyclable mater
as follows:
1 Recover 35% of annual volume within thne years of this measure's approval.
2. Recover 50% of annual volume within seven years of this measure's approvai,
€3. To attain this goal, theiity of Sax Diego shdI enact muse andmycling programs witk
following components:
1. curbside Recvciiw At a minimum, IS% percent of households &ai1 be s~~vtfc
curbside recycling within one yar, 30% of households shall be served within 1'
yms; 75% of household3 shall be served within five years; and remaining househ
shall be served wlthh ten years, to the extent feasible. Curbside recycling pro@ may be supplanted by atemarive volume duction strategies as long as the idmt
City gods we achieved.
2. New DeveIopment; Within served areas, the city of San Diego shall require
condition of the issuance of buiIding permit$ &t new tesidcntidl and non-reside
development provide storage afeaf necessary to provfde fot the economic c01lcct.i
targeted recyclable mterials, where fml'ole.
A, The City of san Piego sbdl require that applimtions fw discretionary projects MI
detaifed analysis identifying the impacts of the proposed development on the ability c
region to meet Federal and State air quality standards. The City of San Diqo
consider any adverse impacts of a decision to @nt the rquested appmvals, and quire measures to mitigate identified adverse irnWG.
A. The City of San sego shdl require that applications for discretion-rc\lv projects incl
detailed analysis identifying the impacts of thu prOposed &velopment on the ability 1 region fo meel Federal and State water quality standards, '][he City of San Diao
consider my adverse impacts of B decision to grant the fauested approvals, ani require rnea~wes to mitigate identified adverse impacts.
'rJ\II cc .s
dde
V31, Air QualIty Assurance Plans
/ VIII. Water Quality Assurance Plans
-
IX. Child Care Site Program
(6)
- -----------------_____________________ ...........................................
rexrvc hd Pay fef? w, lor UIC acqulsltion
14 ne otdinace imposing such a requirement includes definite standark and expn
methodoby for determining the required resewation maor fees to be paid in li
themfa includiflg pfxedures to allow fQr waberg ugm the presentation of e~der;
that fla n& dl be CftWd by the project, or that the projeted demand for child d -care sites atsibuuble 10 fie prop~sed dwe~opment will b~ met through 9th~ ma,
2, The reservation and/or fee rtquiremcnt shall dtactly relate to need for child day c sites caused by the development subject to the reqdrement, 3, Prion'ty congidemtion shall be given to be use of child care! fees in Iieu rcvenw for
acquisition of sites for child care &ten adjacent $0 or w part of transit stations. 4. if after five ye=, the reservation or fees have not been used or art no longer nee& erne the residents of the development upon which the requirement had been imps
the resented property shall be reteased and the fees shall b reconveyed to the curr
property owner of record.
hCU thereof, Of some Combination sites for child day cilr !P enters, pmvided that: -
X. Public Fucility Concurrent \\.'fth Need
A. Community facilities needed to support development including but not limited to parks, stations and libraries, shall be available concurrent with the impacts of such developtnc
Where feasible, the City of San Diego shall require discretionary projects to direc
Construct required community facilities necessary to serve the residents of t
development, If facifities nceded by new residential and non-nsidenrfal development no[ provided concurrent with need, the City of San Diego shall cdl, phasc or condi approvals of discretionary projects to ensras the drneiy provision of the such fadkks.
1. capha Improvement Plans: The City of San Diego shall prepaxe a comprehen
capita imprwement plan which shafl incfude the following companents identifica of nded improvements; @tandards for levels --- of servicqfof the capital improvemi
identified in the San Diego City Progress Guide ad General Plan; cost estimr
timing of the construction of the prujcct; prow& M mddpattd funding SOURS;
classification of the irnproverrtent into one of the following categories: (a) mmmu
faciljtics necessary to serve existing residents, including an analysis of CUI
deficiencies, and the mews by which the deficiencies will be eHminated with reasonable time period; or (b) community facilities nccesSary lo sene
development
a, FacilikFinancinm The Cfty of $an Diego shdl prma facility finar
plan3 for each dommunity within trs boun&s and $MI update such pldns at evety five years, including I fisd impact analysis described in Section 1
initial $ans shall be completed within the first fiye yw cycle, b. && 'N Threshgid/Ptrasina p?nr; Facility plans shall cantah fadity thy&
which ensure that future development Is phastd in such a manet to prc rquired community facilities concurrent with need, Complimce wish fw
thresholds skdil be SI condition of aft Bisc~.ttionary projects. Public facilit service waifability shall satisfy the requirements of this section If the F
facilities are phased, or the devcloprnetnt is ph"ed, 50 that the necessary L
fatili ties are available concurrent with thc impacts of the development c. msw n of Commuqify Facilities Community facility financin
threshold pIms shall emphasize direct cmsmctian of rquked community fac
B, Comprehendve Facility financing hps
J
-----l
(r)
_. --------------------____________________--------
ii im Dieehall: (1) provide fb; reirnbursemeeechanisms; (2) enter
development agreements Or (3) USe vesting Tentative Maps. Where di
constRdon of 8 COmJnUrlf Iy facflhy is not feasible, adequate financial guaran
may satisfY the requkemertts of thfS SdOn. Such guarantees may include, but be limited to, assessment financing, insamen& ofdt, sweriw, or the payn
of devefoPment impact fees t.easonabty related to the cost of providing ca] improvements necessary to me die to posed development.
C. Facilities Adeq~tacy and Fiscal Impact&nalvt : The City of San Di-0 ! require apptications for discretionary projects to include a detailed fixat impact and
which estimates (a) the revenues to be generated by the proposed development inclu,
but not limited to'kxes, assessments fees and chatges; and (b) the anticipated operatic
maintenance and replacement costs for providing and -icing 41 public facil f~sanably related to the needs genelatcd by the development. If the fisd ana indicates that the operational, maintenance and replacement costs will exceed the anddl
revenues, the City of San Dfego may balance the socta!, economic, housing
environmental benefits to be derived ftom the development against the fiscal dcficic
estimated to be incurred. A fiscal impact analysis covering tin entire community p!ar
shall satisfy the requirements of this section.
Senstttve Lands and Habitat Conservation Districts A, The City of Sdn Bego shall prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan for the creati
Habitat Conservation Districts. It is the intent of this measure that the City of San 1
prepare habitat conservation plans and districts in c~peratf~n with other govemn
entitie, The pufpoe of the habitat consmation plans and aistric~ shall be to wub
which supports rare of endangered species of minds or plants 8s defined In Section
Habitat Consemtion Districts shall acquire sensitive hlbitats though grant fur
assessment financing, or impact fees required as a condition of approval of discreti projw ts.
_-
X I.
x 11, ZIoustng AffordahIIitj. A, ne City of $an mego shall prepare a report reviewing existing ordimces, poIicfr
pr~~&ures which effect housing affor&Xty. It is the ;ntent bf this meaj~ that tf:
of san Diego's existing ordinances, policies and pmcedures be amended to provide retention and rehabilitation of affordable housing stock and the consmction 01 aff&ible housing units where feasible.
Al Each year the City of San Diego shall prepare and the City Council shall consider, and adopt at 8 public meeting, a report for the preceding year documenting the a type, Iocation and intensity of development by community plan mea and shall CC~
Bach component of this measure has been complied dth, setting forth the manner 4
~mpliancc. A report on the economic impact of this measure shall be psrt ofthe
review and shall include ?he effect on housing affordabillty and availability, empl
ad otha aonomic impacts OR the City of San mego and the region.
A. AVERAGE DAILY TRIP: Cumulative impact rate as defined by the City of Sar EnginEdng ad Development wartment TAP Generation rate summary, revised F
2, 1987, AI>Ts shalf not bc allocated to, and benefit aSst%SmCflt fkfg Shdl not be
existing residences. 8, CH1I.D DAY CARE SITES; Sufficient land to provide up to I15 child care sp; 1m population, not to exceed 1 10 square feet of land per child care SpW.
XIII, Annual Public Report
xiv. Definttions
(Q
tentative map, par map, recIassification, general pla enamtrbt, uGyelopmt agreement, planned veloprnent permit of similar disaet w approval intended ComPrehensively review a PrticUlar project or land us, appljed for afier the effective d of this measure, excluding single purpose pernits designed to accomplish a narrow pub
pU'poX, such aS a hihide or design review permit.
D. DRIVE ALONE RATE: The percentage resulting froM calculating the number employes who ae X~cdded to report to the work site and who drive alone to the work
duini2 the Peak PefiOd divjded by the tub1 number of employees who ac schedulec rept to that worksite: during the ped period based upon fiscal year.1990 a9 the t.
Year* E, LARGE EMPLOYERS: An emp1oyer witb more than 50 employees who =e xhedule,
report to a work site during the peak period. F. PEAK PERIOD: Beween 650 a.m. and 8:30 am. weekdays, adjusted annually and P rcgionafly pursuant to schedules prepared and adopted by the San Diego Associatio
Government$.
?hose spe which are: listed under Titte 14 of the California Adrnlnhetive Coe listed under Feded Endangered S@es Act; protected by a certified Habitat Conmation Pian; o subject of an executed Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Sari Diego U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. H. SAN I>iEGO TIIANSPORTAIWN IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ORDINANCE k )ZXPENT)ITURE PROGRAM: Proposttion A ballot measure, November i987 $an c
County elec~on.
I. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES: Right-of-way acquisition, environmental ret design and consbuction of highways, bridges, major thoroughfares, transtt and inter
commuter rd fiditi6S, hdudiing attendant debt financbg.
X V, hlodificatkm The provisions of this measure may bc modified by the San DIego Council upon two-thirds vote of the Coundl, as long as the modification is consistent Wit purpose of this measure or the modifidon is necessary to respond to changing circumsta
XV 1. Conff icting Measures The provisions of this measure constitute 8 comprehe program to: reduce traffic congestion by assuring that the Regiondl Tmsporution P
constructed in a timely manner through the establishment of benefit assemtent fu program; assure that facilities necessary to Serve new development are available at the ti nsd; provide that new development dws not burden the existing taxpayer thoup peffdmance of required fiscal impact analysis; protect water soppli~ through the enactm
wata conservation and RUS~ programs; and assure water qdty is protected md enham fequzng watq qdity 8ssurmce plans, An initiative entitled The Phned Orowth lniti ha filed a notice of intent!on to circulate. The provisions of the "Taffic Contrc
Comprehensive Growth Management Initiative" are wholly incon$istent with and inten an alrernative to "The Planned Growth Initiative". In rhe event that bath measures m mdotity vote, the masure obdning the most votes shaU prtvd and the other metsue s
entirely void, regardless of the pr~vision~ in Section XVII., Scvtrability- SeverahilStY If any section, subsection, sentence, ckiu~, phtase, part or por Ms meaSuTe is far any reason held to be fnWd a- unwristktiond by B final judgemen1
court of cornpctent jurisdiction, such dccision shdl not affect the validity of the ren portions of this rnearure. It is hereby dKlared that this measure and each section, subs
sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof would have be@ adopted oc
9 w v-- --
G, RARE OR &NDANGERED SPECIES OF ANLMALS OR PLANTS:
xV'JI.
(9)
- pms-ot portions be dccl * hivalid or unconstitutional. 0 XYIII. Implementation ?%e plans, pokies, programs, procedures, and regulatic
necesw to implement the provisions of this measure &all be adopted within 180 day5 of
enactment by the veta.
STATEMENT OF REASONS A statement of the reasons for the proposed action as contemplated in Said petition IS
follows: San Bego's tempenate climate, spectacular natural beauty and strong economy make it c
of America's most liveable cities.
But the liveability of SXI Diego -- its quality of life -- is in-ingly at fi& From grow
related problems such as traffic congestion, dr and water pollution, uncertainty of future wa
supp1ies and inadequate public facilities,
Now is the time to take action to protect San Diego's liveability not just fot the short-tei
but Into the next century-
The City of San Diego Traffic C~~rtroI and Comprehensive Growth Managernat Xnitiat is a workable, fonvard-thinkjng and comprehensive program to controt growth and ensure that t
Diego rerndns a safe, comfortable and CQnVtXi€!nt place lo Jive.
Key elements of the Plan:
Reduces tdfic by building highMyr, attlniaIs and mas bansit he4 needed 10 camp1
ha Regional Transportation Plan. Funding for these msportation faczth dl1 be paid for
new devehpment, not existing residents
Requires ne* development and large employers to prepam traffic managerrtent plans
encourage use of dmadves to automobile commuting.
Curtails consmtctiofi of new development projects, if those projects do not pr~v
community facili tics when ~eeded. Places the cost of new development squatdy on new developmmt, irot current taxpaym
Requires new development to provide detailed analyses of iU impacts on air and wi
Helps to protect future water supplies through comprehen&e water reclamation :
Establishes trmh recycling programs, and requifes new development to provide tr
Repuhs pew deveioprncnt to TeServe land ot contibut@ fees to plovide for child &y c
Requires the City to mate habimt consavation plans and districts t~ aqh land wh
quality.
ConSeCvatiOn.
jmwe arcas for recyclable matttid~.
sites.
sup~s fare or endangered
Signed- Dated; [b -' 31- g-9
I)ated: /& 5/-m Signed:
i ./b \J .. 3 ;. ..y4j Signed:
ClQl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
i c i, a' ' 7 {llh'fl c:!$*!--*
9
pdority Titnsportatfon
Carridof Pro~ect
Existing ~r Planned Routes
- -
\
e
City of San Diego Herorandur
DATE : January 3, 1990
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Robert P. Spaulding, City Planning Director
SUBJECT: ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE PLANNED GROWTH
Sever0 Esquivel, Deputy City Manager
INITIATIVE (PLAN!) AND THE SAM DIEGO 2000 INITIATIVE FOR
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 1990
Attached is background material for the Special Meetin! of the City Council to discuss Growth Management issues, Attached for your review, is a comparison chart of Growl
lvlanagement Initiatives, an Issue Analysis for both the Planned Growth Initiative (PLAN!) and the Traffic Contrc
and Comprehensive Growth Management Initiative (San Diet 2000) and the latest City Growth Management Status Repo! Update which details the progress of presently adopted
growth management components.
Below are preliminary estimates of the City budgetary
impact of the Planned Growth Initiative in terms of
anticipated City staff increases necessary to implement the measure:
1) Intake -discretionary (our definition) - Minimal additiona
-ministerial (our definition) - Minimal additiona
staffing costs
staffing costs
2) Facilities Financing Division Engineering and Development Dept.- 8 additional
positions, includ overhead and floc space: Total budget -
$670,000
3) Transportation Planning Division - 40 additional Engineering and Develaprnent Dept. positions includi (see Attachment 5 for budget overhead, floor
detail) space and comput
costs Tot budget - $3,600,(
m 0
4) Development Services Divisi0n Engineering and Development Dept.- 2 additional positions, includi
overhead, floor
space and other
costs. Annual
personnel expenses
will be 100%
recoverable Total budget -
$160,000
5) Traffic Engineering Division
Engineering and Development Dept.- 4 additional positions includin
overhead, computer costs, office spuc
Total budget -
$315,000
6) Financial Management Department - 2 additional posit ions
(Assoc. Economists
Total budget -
$150,000
7) Planning Department - No staffing impact
but discretionary
projects will have
longer processing
time
TOTAL - Additional Positions - 56 additional positions Additional Costs - $4,895,000
The associated costs of the Planned Growth Initiative WOI be recoverable through increased fees.
/& Deputy Sever0 Esquivel City Manager
RPS:PF:pep
e 0
Attachments: 1) Comparison Chart of Growth Management Initiatives
Initiative 2) Issue Analysis of the Planned Growth
3) Issue Analysis of the SD 200 Initiativ 4) City Growth Management Status Report 5) December 28, 1989 Memo - Budget Input PLAN1 Initiative upon Transportation
Planning Division
3
8
rl
4 8
1
b U d -tn r,
h
w mod -mu c3-4 0 CCb~~ Wac Q, E$ 1
?i 1 hlg c3.22'tlc os VIbIC, e *bIu Q, q3 3
3-40 0.5 k;Zd 81 22.d tn LC %g
@ 02js<-g fi O-dh4J zu 0-d 4 $op.rlu b-4 Lttn
u .rl .d OUm bXOd CUlN
tl E a%P3c c, V-dg c,*rcvpIQ, cutn $3 CU aL( LJ$ .rl%8& 3 Id$ cJ" :ptnpEcd h du 4oour:PUq,tn.d"o .dtn -8- ootn
ala,
I -88l
a 0
b
YaaaLC a,wz5&
a 0 a,W $
= q! :.!: $
2 8.2 B'$*Ej
dW
aw e4
$h.;r::OLC
ow4 a, d oc,
I3 E&& U4J 8"
#Z-5 wA4J
8l-p *&J
rl ' %"3$ k gq4%J GU w % 8:: rg,
tn6 *BbJi -uoLC i!%:"&Jg46.$ a, *4 rl
&J 8 iw! zp LC
8uo 8 &tc&+ V,Yw a, QOLUI-dtn VUP
fsa $82 @LC Q4J -W
a8uc %hb 8:%00,,, urlo 2.A 0, 0 mala sdg qpj58gF~%: 4J .d~epm%a,~4J%;ag~S~"LC9,
E: 3 L8 "tf !i 14 .d & e+ gl.2 Lc .t: &I;= = N 4J ad Qz+E+ -qE 4J -LC 2% a-T'% rl i: % i W.2 i? w.Q w ,.dg,$F g mg21 -aoq&* c a, 83 a@'" 0, a, d 0 % s p E 0 2 al
.d %.dpw?8hC)o (d 4JLc.rl.d 4Jcurlqa~L&~~# 00, *d8sE$.r14J
a-4 &U > 0-4 ea u '?Nq$: EItn>.rIaulo JJa ,Lcpfi 3 LCw LC 5 5 13 % 5: Q8E ...,e*.., E -4 gap% Lc a h-4 i3j+g E$WTJ.4*$ kg5 51 ~~~..,3~.5~.;;1~&SO~~.~~oLcLCII)c.4~'08a,o,s8
i?ll 51!
MuLC LC a, - C3rlUrn0, 0,
owl-lw !sa%
g 22
it
8 I I
I -4 6 'E $1 a iiL 3 *tnOLC.d UWU
4J%-l8 a, a, 4J a, oa q4J4J m8A a-4JJ-4- 0 a-d
7E W-dald W *nD(
Fa $'+J
ULCU ULC &Urn sh.dtn'a,"tn Q)a,UJJ .4~0,7 0WQ)tnLC cauLc as -0,alOrnLc
A
u-nr-n-7-b- Page 2
e 0
&a,.? If 4 *4 W
1 -4 34m &.Lp L, 4 3" U
-4 $& Q, gl$zg q tnam -4 ur4 Mm .dL1dLc h 8Wd 8 35.55 5 z35 $2% aJa- w pd;L14 -,gas ..%",$$E *$ *;*;z.;j o $j 0 @I! kw$+l m.:5s L, &gq B.4 ac,
h gOpJJS$Q, ""$:.LC0 ea4 2 ~mu$3pc*~c,Q,~ g; 5.8 Et$ lpJ{ 223 $23 2.g 2 1E.5 a.44 8 g 8-35 m E ;;8 3 $3 24 -nu *4cu85tqXE v1 -4 ~p""cc.~*oogc JJ Q, Q, LC c m4d u 11 g.4p it! .4uWa'S8"c,a uH8.4w88dmc,c,L,a uc
-I$ OQ, F4 3.2
*%h $J B.:$ u~2~c+i rlumm a-4 0) 1 .2'G "35%84 'S 3 u r) % 8 -4 BQ,&4% -4
.4 a: aJJ "'j LC - ala-4 -SI! $2
9
.AjBV VI g !dL-2 8
&4?"*Z E: "dl a-4 &'$I9 82 L,: ?d$ 3% p&".""I!q ourlm JJS WCaaCc %LQ,Q,aJ u-4 gtn
LC4 . 2% ; 1 hgj -d
3% Ll .c,ua.z IC0 amm5L *2 52 d 2 &! mxE 1 sa ;? Q,a-4 -u di! aJug2&ru 3
a'& lw.5 ama-cm*oacQ,c25 LC p.5 8$W54 ","fd5 uQ, E am c.2 -4 qcc,cua 4-44 c Q, ""ag"'-'ff .$
@3! 3Q a 38 S 2! 3ui7"Sw a 0 a;& a u u% 8 kc, 0.4 5 4 LC4 3pBhspu.4 iy3LCHW4WQ, c .4 -4 d 8 .%a! uoau ai!! ;E *JJ e-d-duau 0, 0 0.44 a, mJJ e %
oI e29g m.4 wUaS LC QJJ %b4aLI SdrnkW haJ *c-sg., $3
23 rn7&eQ, OrnrcUU 44-4 d Q,rl m 3;= 9jf!Bu v1 i0d I Sgnal O-dOL4 I Q, mxla alrl ad us al g-d-dllo L,ucc, 5
d u.4 0 @I8 00 0 b4JJO.d 0 Ll u al S8kLC"W.d wPIwuUa.4EDauaaa Ou,% E$GS$!#.5G 88
rl 42 89W.Y Q,4W c
!!& '"%% u, ac, "2c,WBEOQ,
d 8 u e.4 01.4c,4.4 48.4 G-d
6% coaL, eo
4.
%
5
g d
burn uJJ .;"pi
d w++zloL,mc,p w a .r( .rl mar( c rl a
a -4 c,4 -4 (d S 0 0 hta
JJc,rlQ,clll Od (0 -dd@
h
QI m I 01.4 m
C mwrl Q) Qlc, 0.4 3% * m m-4 00 L, a-4.4 SZRa 4-A "U 0 -4 I UQ,"
5 -4 c, ad a c, -4 IWJJ
d
e3 44
-4- Ll Ll u *NU* v) Q, 0 u 38% m.4 .+n ~l.4
-4 LC ucu
dL, c ua
2
a F w $8
Paqe 3 AITACEMRNT
e 0
%A 3% o& -b b Bc C8sq332 nJ.d 0amvl.dL( 2g c,c 6,
eLu28p5uB.G8 ad .d a05 4Jc,OfjOCb
daw *Z~:O~O u bc,&J a, 25 a"
2.532Qqpg rn 0.d auJgg *E ij wd% %*GS8 gg.g(& > rrJ g us a,
.d.dro uww uaw 4rrJ *$$3$5a
2 3.'" 8 Q) 1 Sm4id a, s.2 B *dcu2rn2 3 %A$
"q v12j t.i.2 az.2 !$gi ip b.2 a, ac,zdd fqp OU
8%Jz*6~a5zb 04 rlw aa,w Rh e333 "G35ZE m5
a,uc b Ob
d Fa,
rn ma,c % +, rlG dm
@$.uq &B4$G.zga 0, t&I2 u 8 -5go; 8-
5 caj 1% lj34 afnb Bsso mfn w
2D'%t.g$ rl .d .d y Ea a, > 8 2abbw!iJg ua8a
3.u.5 9- c; 8S.a g.52 i
G 4UrrJ-d 1 kgg3 or(a, .d ""qp m-s>
.d ou h+p a, bo-a, d -2 ggx; 6 1.22b rl.d.duoma,).~ a
sa, ucm
% -4 c, 2A 00 .r) -4 rlu ad
.r( m "F.':
$L3u m mar( .d
.d W
8- E4 UW- HdJJ dHC gw
Paae 4 ATTACHMEW
0 0
EiErl
e c2t 8 -4
ga
d,
* Q+jU;@U
wA U a ut4 "Sg a& 2 tn 'd Lt a%!! dUapU a
0 -4 .2 $ .z di! I kp.- gu2 E-g i!j 2 p - $8 ULt 0 a! rlau.4a 6; gu-4 duuU 'o"'"cua -4 tn c uar)ln ..gtUa.hl gzs
"'o"::ypjeg;.~u;ti;;~ -%%.%J.:8 qso:8$3 4UYP1 tn 91 p8&
~w%= 8qjp~pwtqpb ma 3&?g Yr = t :I a4 +.&$L-g4% -4 Cd vu uua
3 a)$Ifl&$-L-4d.d Q-2 **q i!j 83 8 LI qyg I5 h313 % tn 8 pu 8 -2 4 82 g Lc 3V-d UlU a a u u a UiqB 0, ~~:~Gfz~2~s,~,Lu",Ltw,uQ~~~~ Uuu 8 E.;.; 8.4 d0tn UWOd WQW
u 04
-q$# 6 cad aG $ %:TI am uaa 222 *a! %e,gzo 5 Ltr $1
r2 4.dd Sd 53 Ll $ c mu tn-4 a Ud a 0 a u ou3~~udg~xau" rl a qa! QgGa 0 cp
Quad 2 E LL4aa ~ Q pr13 g
-2.2 Q $3 i g&pd uz'-gg%d 9 u
B8'3"f r(Lc ks.: m ddUa,rlQ tn L58+3 1 aL).m;ilB$iu %!P Ill $2B0S.r?Eif LC mu rnwa 23 g bQITIclrtWS'
cNZ B2 G35 u 5 -4 '
,aL oa'
.d
EU 3d-u OUE
tna ti 3r 8 f-4 3 a.c$d
mLt d mc 0 I LC4 BE i 8 U.dU . iimpJl4 22' $8 ad Lto
-s%3ke%4
tn hum
v.l ud c
UH U-44
a0 0.4
0 P:
a Ti 4 -4 Q u.4 a " ';f&LtLC %Z33h
S%% a 3 0 v) Q a
clod $I~~g!a,~
a& 0.d
8 !3 a,tn k-&- urn
a c q &$$ c, c.
a gaa.4 r) -4 a .r) -4
. urn A . otna a* ut a0 3VC%Z 6% tP oocu
0 amu 39 QUL( -4 2; %.& tP25 p*j w! La aq &C
-4 we! a UI
UUd &I & !q% $22
2olu "'414 c, Y otnu E3 ; igg5
891 iu iiij VJ
.rlLtrnQ wa%Lt
8.d a
Qrl I Lu cu u 0's
B m-
Page 5 AlTACHMEN
e 0
0.
I8h gq pL L, &i a)*d tn uu4 kLp 3 2 qcp, "5
SI3 $f;iclQ)E blw G
".q;3jug rlfe w la4 w bl 3z 0 s In p%i G.2 In4 fe c al
4 gt3ga O kg L, LC PI a3 9 q @I In
Y;1%wlz aa vlvlo 6dCE 3 D&ZBi!j q 8 b5 E
8 $45 "Si i uJJ.4 u) LSp ej
i4h a4w Es g4:%%%
a &l -4
cuw *- qq ,$AalS 8 g.8 a/$. 0 u ua g&j %3 *d 8 ad 3agp%n d.rOcaC ~48r.+j & w*u 252 0 u id tL m27 b ".i -pj
~~4.seeg., ummo rcw Wk3W! e.,&* $Bv O .~~ Urn st 93 Q) -$ Ea& LI
BqztJQ,.5'i:L% u 04m w v: $g%L gal
P, 5.3 8;=G LC SL Q)il & Rzs, .?'&';;I: B.44 ac,ma$~+ua b bl .r(.d &dW LLuc uo- Lu 3 --rl
8 p ol 1 le
- e;
A";? k$z 8s
ii
4 d;7 3 4 0 0 .r( 4 LC SUrp
TI Q, u 2b-G c a m Q) U +Jvl rpvl $ 4 LI
..,O.El++g$ -
JJ 0 u mcz !ng
3 % 3 ';I 5 .d 4
*dad 8&1%3" Q)JJcluQ)JJa Q, b*rl s
8 em m $2 co
hQ, u adw E: 0fi.c'~
-r4 WXcrJJU&(aim a o iK-- JJ kaQl d
3s 3 e LC 0 0 .d Q
t4u Q, aciU -4 U-n
$EM&J"CJln, *ma UQ) om3
4 W 0 u m
a4 m -4 v
@.&35 tp P, cpw b
dm0 3 a'S u .rl z 83.2
c,mu 82
albl .dInP, bl 0 *-wa c a mwbl
-4 .d c,
d'"dfS7 0
b4l-t- hg5u-d
ELI -PIC,$
JJm Ql4l :: P $ g gg E$g 4 E Qlrl b4
. s 5m 9 dd4
4mo & QJJ
4 rlQ, I 4 .d ULI roo LC 0 r;l gg s2 d
m F 0 2(pJ
hi3
2 8.5 3
4 a mrl tn &%E
v G 4 w
Vc( Id bl
Urn'
5 3 2 -4 Q, LC E- uz
Ltm ,.d3LC3* -mg 0) a0 a uvl0.I 0 040 rloal TIcu
E!
Page 6 ATTACHMEW
I n
ei I!
3! m
?2 8 8
v1 v) m
$ 11 al 6, 5" a 8 a 5 a
+J L,
0 I si 4J VI0 8 -4 UUY c Q LI Qu i$$i
&a so, EgUQ~ z3 -dE :: i; c .! 0 5 Q.5:
hm VIdQv1% 0 t 4 m 4J -4 LC -4 3& 4L
c uu
0 a
C irgBE d
q*DIc, Q, oc*4w *
2 ?I? '6 +J *F$g
38 8 ab uc
*8w @& cub 83 #;I &E@ ca
L, -4.4e-lom -ua.r( c
LC a& 0
Q) Q, Q, curl
.4 Q) - uutnul-2Q)
In E u b.2 tn
& @be 2 2 t.2 g
aA8.f tnd LC b&
s $25 Q,
& "u.ng9
88 kG%
@*Pi !$ -r( In3
L, ?tn a.5 tn tu 04.4 al
F tn Q, -4 .r( @ip j
h tF7i El& %+E
Go w TI Id JJ a Bi
.13 *g i.! g 2 : -z
dl
gcb tnQ,-4v, CtnC+#~",r; -4 al &
E 88 i m" a*r-r
B-$ 7 Q, 85 kt!
uLCcamEcauca.3
WFI c c os '11
4mUUOrl
-4Q)tnO aoa!
c n
Page 8 ATTACBMKNl
88
B a
PLAN!
PREVENT LOS ANGELES NOW
STAFF ISSUE PAPER
PROJECTS WHICH wourm BE AFFECTED
ISSUE: Requirement.$ of this measure apply to tentative maps
conditional use permits, parcel maps, development agreementr
building permits, grading permits, and land development permitr
Projects now defined as discretionary are involved as well i
ministerial projects greater than four dwelling units in size c
10,000 square feet of commercial/industrial office space. How mar more projects will be added to the City's discretionary revit
process under this measure, and what are the implications of su(
review?
DISCUSSION: The City reviews approximately 1,200 discretiona
projects annually. These projects are reviewed for environment
impacts, needed traffic improvements, and public facili availability. Adoption of this measure would increase projects be reviewed to approximately 1,600 to 1,700 annually. This numb
residential projects of four or fewer dwelling units a commercial/industrial development of less than 10,000 square fee In 1988, the City reviewed for ministerial building permit 4 projects greater than four dwelling units in size or 10,000 squa feet of commercial/industrial. These projects would now classified as discretionary and required to submit the analys
and meet the mitigation requirements of the initiative. The 4
projects represent 7,969 dwelling units and 15,051,405 square fe
of commercial/industrial development. In 1989, this numt
increased to apprclximately 471 projects. All of these projec would have to submit a detailed traffic congestion analye
(whereas today lesls than 100 projects require detailed traff studies), a certification of adequate public facilj availability, a detailed twenty-year fiscal balance analysis, i
a detailed water analysis. The need for these additional studi
would result in increased costs and processing time. If t
proposed developmerit causes traffic level of service to fall bel the standard, or i,f the proposed development does not fulfill
public facility concurrency requirement, or if the project co
more to service than will generate in revenues, or if the proj
causes adverse impacts on the water supply, quality or rates; t the project proponent must meet mitigation requirements, includ but not limited to payment of a fee, or be denied.
The budgetary implications of reviewing an additional 400 to
discretionary projects, as well as increasing the level of rev for already defined discretionary projects, is outlined in cover memo to this report.
is based on the initiative's exemption provision which exemp
PLAN ISSUE PAPE
Page 1 ATTAC#MEN'I! 2
m a
SECTION 2A: NEW DIWELOPMENT SHALL NOT INCREASE TRAFFIC
CONGElSTI ON
TRAFFIC CONGESTION tSSUE 1: How can the critical traffic goals ( the PLAN! initiative, (that congestion levels not be increased be achieved while maintaining the City's planning g oals adoptc
for recognized special communities (e.g. those intended as urbi nodes)? This section requires - all applications for permii subject to this initiative (inclusive of building permits for fi7
development of over 10,000 square feet) to include a detaili traffic congestion analysis identifying adverse impacts of tl
proposed development upon the "established standards". The PLAI initiative establishes the standard to be set at a level service (L.O.S.) "C" during off-peak hours for all roadways a during peak hours. Some community plans (e.g. Centre Cit
University, Mission Valley, Uptown and La Jolla) have been adopt with a recognition that existing and projected level of servi standards are below the Standards identified by the measure.
DISCUSSION: It is the City's current policy that appropria levels of service be maintained on streets as prescribed by t General Plan and community plans. However, it is not possible (n
necessarily desirable) to set the same roadway level of servi for - all communities. Many communities in San Diego have existing peak hour level of service lower than IcCtl or "D" some locations (particularly freeways and freeway ramp meter because the community was developed decades ago with more narr streets; or because the area has unique characteristics (bea communities, downtown). Similarly, future level of service many adopted community plans is also below "C" or "D" , due
unique community goals and character, land use intensity, effor to encourage redevelopment, or because widening all streets achieve an ideal level of service would cause communi disruption. IntenEle activity centers such as the central busine district cannot reach the critical mass needed and still mainte
C&D levels of service on surface streets and freeways.
It is not possible to achieve an ideal level of service due
ongoing regional growth and community preferences, nor would it cost-effective to widen all streets and freeways to achieve city-wide standard. In addition, it may actually result
lowering land use intensities in the urban area, thereby forci
growth to the outlying fringes of the county, thus increas:
commuting and freeway congestion. Furthermore, the City I evaluates projecks based on impacts on level of servic
However, traffic alone is not a good basis for land use decisioi From a planning standpoint, setting a citywide project appro' system based on khe level of service standards on our strec could have a profound effect on land use and density, and may a.
or more residenth1 units, and commercial and/or industri,
(1 D 11
PLAN ISSUE PAPE: Page 2 ATTACHMENT 2
* a
- work counter to some major urban form objectives. In essence
designing our city around a traffic level of service system place
traffic ahead of and in conflict with other very important urba
form policies.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION ISSUE 2: The PLAN! Initiative would result i
additional impact fees being levied as a means of mitigating th
adverse level of service impact associated with a particula
project. What unanticipated consequences could result from th
imposition of additional fees only tied to level of service?
DISCUSSION: Many of the Planned Urbanizing Areas have Facilit
Benefit Assessment (F.B.A.) in place. Under the measure 8
proposed, adherence to the transportation measures of the adoptt F.B.A. program would no longer constitute adequate traff: compliance. Because the PLAN! initiative calls for mitigatic
citywide at a uniform "C" off-peak and I'D" peak-hour level (
service, it does not allow for plan adopted lower service leve.
without further attempts at mitigation. This presents potential legal problem in that impact fees would be applied ovc and above the adopted community plan.
Furthermore, assuming that mitigation in our intensely develop(
areas would come in the form of impact fees, the system then maki it more expensive to develop where we want intensive developmen and less costly in less intensely developed areas. The proposl system would demand high fees where we want intensive developme and lower fees in less intensely developed areas. The incenti may be in the wrong direction.
In addition, to the extent that higher impact fees discoura
development in higher intensity urban areas, a disincentive wou
be created regarding completion or redevelopment of the
communities which have the potential for high public trans
usage. The 1979 General Plan recognizes the importance of havi
higher intensity areas from the standpoints of focusing employme
and shopping opportunities to create sufficient intensity to all
service by public transit and to create an efficient land c
* pattern.
Another unintended consequence would be encoura9ing outlyj development rather than development requiring mitigation. 'I
anticipated result would be increased trip lengths and increar
traffic. It should also be recognized that feasible mitigatic
for projected freeway congestion would not be under the Cit:
jurisdiction, but be controlled by CALTRANS.
The PLAN! Initiative allows for mitigation by fee in lieu actual improvements. The legality of this concept needs to reviewed by the City Attorney's office. Setting the fees may
tricky - how is the amount to be determined; how, where, and w
PLAN ISSUE PAPE
Page 3 ATTACHMENT 2
* 0 0
- shall the money be spent; can we establish a direct connectic
between the fees collected and the benefit attributed to tk development; and how can the improvements be timed to assure thz
they are provided concurrent with need. The fee amount and ti
timing issue are linked since the longer the gap betwec collection of the fee and actual construction, the higher tl
cost.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION ISSUE 3: The PLAN! initiative requires lev of service to be measured by the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (
subsequent additions). This stipulation would limit the range
technical tools which the City's Transportation Planning Divisi
could apply to future traffic analysis problems. Should initiative establish a methodology for determining level
service?
DISCUSSION: To avoid restricting the professional determinatic available to the City Engineer in applying appropriate state the art traffic analysis techniques, level of service measureme should also permit the following:
1. Use of the 1985 Highway Capacity Utilization manual
2. Use of the Intersection Capacity Utilization Methodology, I
3. Use of other techniques, if approved by the City, which l generally accepted within the traffic engineering professi
subsequent additions,
PLAN ISSUE PAP Page 4 ATTACHMENT 2
0 a
DISCUSSION: Provisions of public facilities concurrent with ne4 is already City policy. The problem is how does the City actual: do it, particularly in the Urbanized Areas.
In the Urbanized Areas, the City does levy impact fees to finani new facilities whose need is generated by new developmen However, there is no mechanism for financing facility deficienci
related to existing development. This critical issue is bei
Assistant City Manager, John Fowler, Their report is schedul for Council consideration on January 11 and 18, 1990. As possible follow-up to the Fowler report, it may be appropriate re-examine Council Policy 600-28 "Requirements for Developme Approval in Planned Urbanizing Areas" to also consider t
facility deficiency issue in the urbanized areas. In additic the terms "concurrency" and "certify adequacy" need to be define
PUBLIC FACILITIES ISSUE 4: Should development be postponed unl
public facility standards can be attained?
DISCUSSION: If public facilities cannot be provided concurrf with need, as required by the initiative, does the City have 1 option of postponing development until the facilities can provided? This involves the question of which specific facilit. must be in place in order for a development to proceed
The issue is most relevant in the Urbanized Areas wh significant facility deficiencies exist. The Citizens' Fina Committee will make recommendations on this issue as well.
addressed by the Citizens' Finance Committee headed by form
PLAN ISSUE PAP Page 6 ATTACHMENT 2
a 0
SECTION 2C: NEW DEVELOPHENT SHALL PAY ITS FAIR SHARE
ISSUE: Would a requirement that individual development proposal
meet a fiscal balance test be workable and beneficial to th Cit ? The initiative states that a twenty year fiscal balanc
.dygig to identify costs and benefits of proposed development
shall be performed on each application for "discretionar
approval" and that projects be approved only if a favorabl fiscal balance can be assured.
DISCUSSION: The requirement for fiscal balance to be assured pose
several difficult problems. Residential projects usually COB more to service than they can generate in revenues. By contrast
commercial developments often generate more in revenues than the cost to service. For this reason, the fiscal analysis criteria ( this initiative would tend to favor primarily commercial projeci and large mixed use projects over smaller, primarily residenti: projects. Denial of residential projects because of the:
inability to pay for themselves could result in an imbalance (
uses. This would potentially conflict with objectives I
community plans and the General Plan calling for balancc communities and affordable housing. In addition, it would tend 1 favor large scale development over smaller projects. The fisci balance requirement could also penalize institutional ai
non-profit uses such as churches and museums which do not pi taxes and contribute revenues unless they are exempted from th requirement. The fiscal balance requirement could also conflii with City efforts to encourage redevelopment and new developmei in certain older sections of the City.
A meaningful analysis of costs of service vs. revenues would be
be done on a community and subregional basis rather than on project by project basis. Since a community-wide analysis is on
practical in newly developing areas, the usefulness of th
approach is limited to a few urbanizing communities.
The Planning Department's previous experience with fiscal impa
' analyses prepared by consultants for developers is that t analyses are frequently self-serving and contain data which
difficult to support or refute. This indicates that objecti analysis for most projects would best be done by City staff rath than consultants.
In Section 4, Subsection C, "EFFECTIVE DATE AND IMPLEMENTATION the initiative states "The City Manager shall maintain a list 'independent qualified firms' to perform the analysis required
this measure." This language does not allow the Manager t discretion to utilize City staff who have the expertise to perfc the analysis.
PLAN ISSUE PAPEE
Page 7 ATTACHMENT 2
. 0 a
SECTION 2D: NEW DEVELOPMENT SHALL ADOPT REASONABLE WATE
CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION MEASURES
ISSUE 1: Would a water quality analysis for individua
development proposals result in implementation of appropriat water conservation measures? This Section requires a1
applications for permits subject to this initiative to include detailed water analysis which describes the water usage of tl
project and its impact on water supply, quality, and rates. I addition to considering any identified adverse impacts, the Cit
would require the applicant to use all economically feasible watt conservation and reclamation measures.
DISCUSSION: City discretionary projects are currently subject i Water conservation impact analysis as a component of the CEQA mandated environmental review process. However, this analysis
' not normally carried out for most smaller projects, or actio] such as building permits which the PLAN! initiative defines t discretionary. The impact on water supply, quality, and ratc would not be very meaningful or measurable for the small1 projects. However, the City's Water Utilities Department shou develop citywide goals and policies for reducing water usage ai promoting water conservation. A more efficient and meaningfl approach to water impact analysis would be to address these issul on a cumulative basis in the General Plan and community plan with only large scale projects requiring the type of analys described.
ISSUE 2: Would a water overlay zone be an effective means assuring protection of water quality in City reservoir
Sections D3 and D4 call for establishment of a perimeter "wat quality overlay zone" surrounding reservoirs in the City used f potable water storage. A development restriction of one residen per 10 acres is proposed for these areas.
DISCUSSION: The City Water Utilities Department's reservo protection criteria are not based on a set distance requiremen
The City applies its Urban Run-off Control Protection Systems individual projects on the basis of "dry run-off" (urban drainag and "first flush" (initial storm run-off) criteria. Use of pipe canals, and other structural measures as necessary are appli through the subdivision process. It appears that the propos buffer zone of 1,000 feet or the nearest ridgeline is neith necessary nor sufficient without other measures to protect potab
water quality. A more meaningful water quality protection progr should be based on a comprehensive watershed analysis.
ISSUE 3: How would application of the water protection overl
zone affect land uses? Application of the proposed overlay zc
PLAN ISSUE PAPEE Page 8 ATTACHMENT 2
e *
would limit and constrain future development around Lake Hodges Lake Murray and Miramar Lake. The most significant impact
anticipated would be in the Miramar Ranch North Community on th north side of Miramar Lake, The adopted plan for: this cornmunit
designates approximately 25% of the industrial development and 1E of the residential development in the entire community to the are between the reservoir and the nearest ridgeline, This "reservoi
viewshed" development would be precluded by the PLAN! initiative.
PLAN ISSUE PAPEE Page 9 ATTACHMENT 2
0
SD 2000 INITIATIVE ISSUE PAPER
1. Completion of the Regional Transportation System
a. Issue: A Comprehensive Transportation Impact Fee requir
new development to pay a benefit assessment fee for transportation facilities. The initiative lists project which will receive the fee, some of which are not on SANDAG's list of projects. Up to 10 percent of the fee
revenues are allocated to needed transportation facilitj in the ubanized area which may not be sufficient. It is not clear if the fee is in addition to or is in place of
the regional impact fee being studied by SANDAG.
Discussion: Approval of the initiative would require th City to enact an ordinance requiring new development to pay a fee which would go towards defraying the cost of
constructing or expanding "Priority Transportation and/c
The fee shall not exceed $200 per Average Daily Trip and does not apply to exactions for local-serving facilities or improvements. The purpose of the fee (known as the
Comprehensive Transportation Impact Fee Program) is to supplement existing local, State and Federal funds bein; used to implement the Regional Transportation Plan.
SANDAG is currently evaluating such a regional impact fe The City could incorporate SANDAG's program into its City-wide Impact Fee program, which is presently being developed by staff of City Council consideration.
The initiative identifies nine priority transportation
corridor projects, four of which are not on SANDAG's preliminary list for review. These projects include SR
52 (1-15 to SR 67)' South Poway Arterial-8A (1-15 to
SR 125), SR 905 (1-805 to SR 125) and SR 905 (SR 125 to
Border Crossing).
The initiative requires the City Council to annually
allocate up to 10 percent of the fee revenues for facilities in the urbanized area. This may be too rigid
and could cause problems in the future, depending on hoa the regional impact fee program is to be established. I growth continues to be more in the urbanized area than t planned urbanizing area, a 10 percent ceiling would caus inequities.
Transit Corridor Projects" as listed in the initiative.
b. Issue: Requires the City to enact a TranSpOKtatiOII Dema Management Program. The Program shall include a Drive
Alone Rate goal for large employers not to exceed 55 percent of the total worksite commuters by 1996. The initiative does not address such employers. Large
SD 2000 ISSUE PAP Page 1 ATTACHMENT 3
e 1
employers shall establish TDM information centers,
transportation coordinators, and orientation programs. Employers may authorize a Transportation Management
Association to prepare a plan within their geographical area. The program shall apply to non-residential pco ject
which exceed 25,000 square feet.
Discussion: Adoption of this measure would strengthen tk
City's existing TDM program for large employers as it reiterates the goals and policies of the City's TDM ordinance. For small employers (15-49 employees at a
worksite) the initiative is silent. The City's ordinancc has a Drive Alone Rate of 55 percent to be accomplished by 1998.
2. Protecting Future Water Supplies
Issue: Requires the City to enact a Water Reclamation Facilities Master Plan, and/or ordinance requiring installation of reclaimed water delivery systems as a condition of approval. Reclaimed water shall be used for
common area landscaping, golf courses, parks, freeway landscaping, greenbelts, cemeteries, and artificial lakes where public contact is prohibited. The initiative also requires the City to establish a per capita water conservati goal through enactment of a Water Conservation Program designed to require installation of water saving fixtures 01 City-owned facilities and as a condition of approval for projects subject to this initiative.
Discussion: A proposed Water Reclamation Facilities Master
Plan is presently being considered for adoption as part of ' City's Clean Water Program. In addition, an ordinance has already been adopted to require usage of reclaimed water in areas to be identified in the Master Plan. Water conservat goals and programs are addressed in Council Policy 400-09.
3. Curbside Trash Recycling Program
Issue: Requires the City to establish a goal for the recov of recyclable materials at an annual volume of 35 percent within three years, and 50 percent within seven years of
adoption. Within ten years, all households within the City shall be served with curbside recycling. New development shall be required to provide storage areas for the collectj
of targeted recyclable materials. Can the City realistical meet this goal given projected operation expenses?
Discussion: The goals of 35 percent recovery within three
Unrealistic, as cucbside recycling accounts for only three
five percent of all waste generated. Some form of tax or : increase will be required to provide for operating costs. State law already requires a waste recovery rate of 25 per
years and 50 percent recovery within seven years are
SD 2000 ISSUE P Page 2 ATTACHMENT 3
* e a
by 1992 and 50 percent by the year 2000. In addition, the
Planning and Waste Management Departments are already workin together to develop an ordinance to require discretionary
permit applicants to submit a recycling plan, including storage areas for recyclable materials as part of their perm
applications.
4. Air Quality Assurance Plan
IsSue; Requires all applications for projects subject to th initiative to include a detailed analysis identifying the impacts of the proposed development on the ability of the
region to meet Federal and State air quality standards. The City may require measures to mitigate identified adverse impacts.
Discussion: The environmental process reviews the effects c projects on air quality by looking at any large increases ir
density that may affect the regional mandate to meet Federal
air quality standards. If a project is proposed at a densit
higher than growth projections, it would be considered to be significant impact, and the City would require mitigation.
5. Water Quality Assurance Plans
Issue: Requires all applications for projects subject to tl
initiative to include a detailed analysis identifying the
region to meet Federal and State water quality standards. *
City may require measures to mitigate identified adverse impacts.
Discussion: The environmental process reviews the effects ( projects on water quality, particularly if located near
wetlands or reservoirs. Any adverse impacts would require mitigation.
impacts of the proposed development on the ability of the
6. Child Care Site Program
Issue: Requires the City to adopt an ordinance requiring projects subject to this initiative to reserve land or pay
fees for the acquisition of sites for child day care center The ordinance shall include definite standards and methodol for determining the required reservation and/or fees, including procedures to allow for waivers if no need will b
created by the project.
the development subject to the requirement. Does the initiative adequately address the need for child care given the waiver exemption and the minimuim size requirement?
Discussion: Including child care centers as a condition of approval for discretionary projects should be commended,
however, wording in the initiative raises several questions
The reservation and/or fee shall
directly relate to the need for child day care sites caused
SD 2000 ISSUE PP Page 3 ATTACHMENT 3
e 0
The ordinance imposing such a requirement will allow waivers
if no need is created by the project. The initiative does nc indicate criteria to be used for determination of need. A
project applicant could meet this condition "through other means" not defined in the initiative.
The initiative allows for the release of the property or the reconveyance of fees if not used in five years. not sufficient to determine the ultimate need for the
facility. Demographic and/or economic changes could cause a change in conditions which could extend the time needed to
reserve the facility for future projected growth.
The initiative defines child care sites as sufficient land tc
provide up to 115 child care spaces per 1,000 population, no to exceed 110 square feet of land per child care space. SK law requires at a minimum 110 square feet per child of usabll space. Usable space is outdoor and indoor areas not includii
storage, shelves, bathrooms, sleeping area and other unusabll
play space.
The city had recently hired a child care coordinator and is
impediments to providing child care centers.
Five years
currently amending the zoning code to reduce land use
7. Public Facility Concurrent With Need
Issue: The initiative reinforces existing City policy by requiring community facilities including but not limited to parks, fire stations, and libraries to be available concurrei with "the impacts of such development." Developers of
discretionary projects will be required to directly construc facilities needed to serve the residents of that development
If this requirement is not met, the City would be able to reduce the scope of the project or phase or condition projec approvals to ensure facility completion. The terms "concurrent with need" and the word "need" are not defined i
the initiative.
Discussion! The initiative does not resolve public facility phasing problems any more than existing City policies attemp to resolve these problems. The term "concurrent with need"
and the word "need" will need to be defined as is the case with existing City Policy. The City is already meeting the facility financing requirements through Capital Improvement Plans, Facility Financing Plans, and Facility Threshold/Phasing Plans.
8. Facilities Adequacy and Fiscal Impact Analysis Report
Issue: Requires applications for discretionary projects to include a fiscal impact analysis estimating the revenues to generated from the proposed development with the anticipated operational, maintenance and replacement costs for providing
SD 2000 ISSUE PAP Page 4 ATTACHMENT 3
1 0 e
and servicing all public facilities related to the needs
generated by the development. If it is shown that costs wil
outweigh revenues, the City may balance the benefits derived from the development against the fiscal deficiencies. A fiscal impact analysis covering an entire community plan are shall satisfy the requirements of this section.
Discussion: Requires a fiscal impact analysis for projects
subject to the initiative. The City may approve projects eu
if they have an unfavorable fiscal impact when the City find
that fiscal impacts are balanced by desirable social, economic, housing or environmental impacts. The initiative
also states that a fiscal impact analysis covering an entire community plan area would be sufficient to meet the fiscal impact requirement. While a community-wide analysis is more meaningful than a project by project analysis, the usefulnes of this approach is limited to a few newly urbanizing communities. At the present time, a practical approach for estimating community-wide fiscal impacts in urbanized
communities is lacking, and needs to be developed.
9. Sensitive Lands and Habitat Conservation
Issue: Requires the City to create Habitat Conservation Districts designed to require land which supports rare or endangered species of animals or plants. Acquisition of the districts shall occur through grant funding, assessment
financing or impact fees required as a condition of approval
of discretionary projects.
Discussion: "Habitat Conservation Districts" does not have any official status, but could be analayous to "habitat
conservation plans" (HCP's). HCP's are provided for in
Federal law to allow the taking of an endangered species provided the State, Local and Federal resource agencies agre to the program in advance. An HCP is being prepared for the
San Diego River for the least Bell's Vireo. The HCP is a mechanism to provide for the preservation of endangered species while still allowing for selected development projec to proceed.
10. Housing Affordability
Issue: Requires the City to review existing ordinances, policies and procedures which affect housing affordability,
and where feasible amend ordinances, policies and procedures
to provide for the retention, rehabilitation and constructio
of more affordable housing units.
Discussion: City staff has begun reviewing all housing
policies within the Housing Element for preparation of a
Housing Element update slated for completion in June, 1991.
As well,.staff is beginning to implement the Housing Trust Fund recently adopted by the City Council. It is anticipate
SD 2000 ISSUE PAP
Page 5 ATTACHMENT 3
e a
that approximately 2,600 units will be provided annually for low-income people through the efforts of the Housing Trust
Fund.
In addition, staff is drafting guidelines to incorporate a Housing Affordability Impact Statement into all future staff
reports where it is appropriate. Efforts are underway to
affordable housing requirements. amend the Balanced Communities Policy to establish minimum
11. Annual Public Report
Issue: Requires the City to prepare a report documenting tf.
amount, type, location and intensity of development by community plan area, and shall certify that each component c the measure has been complied with. The report shall incluc an economic analysis, the effect on housing affordability ar availability, employment and other economic impacts.
Discussion: It may be difficult to comply with reporting
requirements for economic and housing affordability impacts. The complexity of these issues makes it difficult to isolate the effects of a single variable (i.e. development which has
occurred in a one-year period).
12. Definitions Issue: Discretionary projects are defined as any real estat development application which requires a tentative map, par( map, reclassification, general plan amendment, development agreement, planned development permit or similar discretion: approval intended to review a project or land use, applied j
after the effective date of this measure, excluding single
purpose permits.
Discussion: Application of this measure to only those projects listed above will limit the measure’s applicabilit! to the future urbanizing area, areas within the planned urbanizing area requiring a tentative map or planned development permit. It is not clear if community plan amendments, conditional use permits, or planned district
permits are subject to the measure.
Issue: Average Daily Trip is defined as the cumulative imp4
rate as defined by the City of San Diego Engineering & Development Department. Trip Generation rate summary, revi February 2, 1987.
Discussion: To avoid restricting the professional
determinations available to the City Engineer in applying appropriate state of the art traffic analysis techniques, C approved updates of definitions used to measure traffic generation rates should be allowed. These rates are frequently updated as new information and studies are made available.
SD 2000 ISSUE PA Page 6 ATTACHMENT 3
# e e
THE CZm OF SAN DIEGO
CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING e 202 C STREET SAN DIEGO, CA 9
City of San Diego
OFFICE OF . Rerorandum PLANNING DEPARTMENT
23&6400
DATB: November 6, 1989
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
IrROEI: Robert P. Spaulding, City Planning Director
SUBJECT: GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS REPORT UPDATE
In August, I forwarded you a summary on the status of growth
management activities underway since your Council's January, 198 approval of several growth management actions. Attached is a current update of the Growth Management Status Report.
The adopted growth management program directs the City Manager 4 the Planning Director to proceekl with implementing a variety of actions which focus' on: neighborhood preservation, public
facilities, sensitive lands, and environmental goals. The Planning Director is responsible for implementing neighborhood preservation, sensitive lands, and two of the seven assignments under environmental goals.
I hope this information continues to be of value to you as
2 implementation of growth management aetians progresses. I intci
to issue updates to your offices as further steps are put in place.
questions regarding this summary, please c-ontacl
of my department at 533-3698.
RPS:PF:vbc
cc: Jack McGrory, Assistant City Manager Severo Esqufvel, Deputy City Manager
GM STATUS
ATIA~I
e e
November 6,
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS REPORT
Naiahbarhaad Prase rva t i on
1. Plan/Zoning Conformance 27 communities are compl communi ti e 6 a E G tar ge tec
hearings between Septeml
December, (Golden Hill, City and Mission Valley communities are targetec hearings in the spring t as part of the plan upd process (Kearny Mesa, M Mira Mesa, Penasquitos, Ysidro, and Tia Juana R
Valley); and 4 communit (Linda Vista, Otay Mesa Pacific Beach, and Torr
Pines) will be handled
the community plan upda cycle. The Golden Hill
I approved at City Counci October 17; the Mission
PDO is scheduled for a November 14 City Counci hearing. An Interim De Ordinance for Centre Ci
be completed by early f with a PDO to follow ir
2; Identification of Single-Family The ordinance, original
Preservation Area8 adopted in August, 198F extended until August,
The council has taken 4 31 communities and 2 P
Plans. During the nex'
months the cammunitiea Golden Hill (portion a( Greater North Park, Mil San Ysidro, Skyline-Pa Hills, Southeast San D
Pacific Beach, Mission and Linda Vista will b forward for Planning C
and Council considerat community of Barrio Lo
pending review for
consideration in 1990.
ATTACHMEW
0 0
.
Page 2
3. Psulti-Family Special Permit On October 10, a proporc
Multi-Family Design ordj was distributed to Comm~
Planning Chairmen. The guideline ordinance will
presented to Council ea1 1990 subsequent to Plan1
A project team was assel
Harch 1, 1989, and on September 15, a Departnc Workshop was held which
analyzed the existing ordinance. The next ph< formulation of the soni
update process, is unde development.
5. Five-Year Community Plan Update The five-year cycle app
the FY '89 budget has c with the FY '90 budget Urban Design and Facili
Financing Elements will
is presently completlns
I revision to the Communi
format.
This policy continues I
Commission action.
4. Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
Update
Cycle
included in each update
6. Council Policy 600-35 Enforcement re. Plan Amendments enforced.
Public Facilities
1. Council Policy on Turn Key
2. Facility Financing Elements in
Council Policy 800-12 Development adopted in June, 1989.
This has been incorpor
Community Plans part of the five-year plan cycle. Several f
plans are now in proce (Clairemont Mesa, Kear
San Ysidro, Midway-Pac Highway, College Area,
3. Innovative Ways to Build Community The Manager and Mayor Facilities - appointed a committee,
by John Fowler. It wi recommendations to Cot January, 1990.
Mid-City),
ATTACHMENT
I 0 a
Page 3
4. Development Monitoring Community plan capacitie been determined based c
adopted community plans. Development Monitoring E
has not been funded; hot staff is researching a n
approach and alternative funding sources. ~n adc
the Engineering and Dew Department has contractc
SANDAG for transportatic development monitoring.
Sensitive Lands
1. Adoption of Resource Protection The Resource Protection Ordinance was adopted b
Council on February 27, 0 rdi nance
2. Grading Ordinance Strengthening Revisions to the Land Development (grading) 0 are to be acted on by t Transportation and Land
(T 6 LU) Committee on November 13th, having b continued from the September 11, 1989 T 6 LU Committee.
,
Environmental Goals
1. General Plan Revision The General Plan Revfsi
Project will be defined FY '90 and presented to Council for funding dur
FY '91.
2. Mobility Planning, Including The Transportation Dema
Management (TDM) Ordina Mobility Planning Progr approved by Council
September 11, 1989. Residential Parking Arne were approved Septembel commercial parking corn1
underway for comple tior Spring 1990.
Provisions of Proposition K
ATTACEMENT
4 e w
U Page 4
3. Water Reclamation The Water Reclamation P
heard at the PS & S corm meeting on August 2, 19 conceptual plan has bee prepared and an EIR is preparation for certifi in 1990. In addition, construction of the San
aquaculture plant is sc to begin in November, 1
This program was expand
Three new areas, Collwa Park, and Mountain Vief Crest were added Octobt bringing the total numi residences to 13,000. participation rate of I percent to 85 percent I realized in areas with established services.
The report of the Blue Committee recommending formation of the Regioi Planning and Growth Mal Review Board was final the second "Forum of CI
held on October 19, 19
SANDAG will be circula recommended amendments SANDAG's Joint Powers
(JPA) for ratification Cities and County. Th proposal received conc approval from City Cot September 12, 1989.
An Open Space Bond Act
Committee has been con to research financing alternatives for acquj and maintenance. The Recreation Department assistance of the. Plar Department, will comp:
needs through a procei public meetings. Inc'
this effort is a revit community planning g8
4. Cutbside Recycling part of the FY '90 budg
5. Proposition C
I
6. Open Space Bond fleasure
preferred community 01
A'JTA-1
H
.. e
Y Page 5
underway through Decembe 1989. A June ballot dat possible if all input is incorporated into a bond measure by March 9, 1990 November ballot measure
be the alternative to a vote
The City Council adopted mandatory use ordinance reclaimed water. The CI
Water Project is under development with an
Environmental Impact Re1 scheduled for cornpletior Spring of 1990. A mastc will be presented by tht Manager for Council appi
that time.
7. Water Recycling on July 24, 1989
I
-
A'ITACEMEN'
Q e
4 CITY OF SAN DIE60 HEWRAWDUM
FILE NO.: 730 (1990)
DATE : December 28, 1989
TO: Janet Fairbanks , Principal Planner, Planning
FROM: Deputy Director, Transportation Planning
SUBJECT: BUDGET IMPACT OF PLAN! INITIATIVE UPON TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING DIVISION
As we discussed, the Transportation Planning Division's analysis of the impac of the PLAN! initiative on our budget indicates that it will require additior employee costs as follows in two areas: development review (new "traffic cor gestion studies" and additional discretionary permits) and fiscal impact analysis (cost of roadway improvements being performed by each discretionary permi t/appl icant) .
I. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
To require traffic congestion studies for all "discretionary" appl icatior would substantially increase the development review staffing needs of thc Transportation Planning Division. Presented below is a summary analysis the staffing needs for the division both under current conditions and unc the PLAN!
1. Discretionary Projects
a. CAUSE
The number of "discretionary" projects that we process will increase from the current level of 1200 per year to 1700 per year under PLAN! because it redefines "discretionary." This is a 42% increase in worl
1 oad .
b. STAFFING
The Division's staffing needs are estimated to increase by 1.00 assit tant traffic engineer due to the increase in this activity.
2. Traffic Congestion Studies Requirements
a. CAUSE
We currently only ''scope'' those projects that generate a relatively
large amount of traffic and/or deviate substantially from the adopte
BUDGET IMPACT 0
ATTACHMENT 5
- I) 0
v MEMO - PLAN! Initiative Budget Impact
December 28, 1989
Page 2
community plans, currently at about 200 per year. Of these, less thi - 75 actually are required to make non-computerized traffic stual remainder do not need traffic studies because they conform to the
adopted community plan, which addresses traffic impacts for that
adopted land use plan. Under PLAN!, ever project would make a traf-
congestion analysis (1700 per year). 7hil! is is more than 22 times as
many non-computerized traffic studies.
b. STAFFING
The Division's staffing needs are estimated to increase substantial 13 due to this significant increase in the number of traffic studies.
Currently, one associate traffic engineer and one assistant traffic
engineer scope and/or review these studies. An additional 23.0 osi- tions would be required under PLAN! to review 1700 traffic mi%:
sumnary bel ow).
3. Transportation Development Section (Total Staffing Needs)
1.00 Senior Traffic Engineer $ 66,273
4.00 Associate Traffic Engineers 218,921
13.00 Assistant Traffic Engineers 609,533 69,789 2.00 Senior Engineering Aides
2.00 Word Processing Operators 55,836 - 2.00 Clerical Assistant 11s 52,138
24.00 Personnel and fringe benefits $I ,072,490
Appl ied overhead (42.9%) $ 460,098 Non-personnel expense - (supplies,
equipment, mileage, utilities,
data processing) 480,000 Additional floor space - 4500 square feet at $18.00 per square foot 81,000
TOTAL BUDGET $2,093,588 (say $2,100,
4. Assumptions
a. b.
The current FBA/DIF program remains intact as currently budgeted;
The five-year cycle of community plan updates remains as currently
budgeted;
es tab1 ish 1 eve1 of service standards ; Analyzing operating and maintenance costs of projects is done by othe
c, A one-time effort is undertaken by Traffic Engineering Division to
d.
ATJTACHMENT
e 9
c MEMO - PLAN! Initiative Budget Impact
December 28, 1989
Page 3
e. Development Services, Facilities Financing and Traffic Engineering Divisions are also staffed to handle the impacts on their workloads;
f. Each "discretionary" project is required to submit a "traffic conges
analysis;
g. "Discretionary" projects would be redefined, thereby increasing the number of these projects by 500 (from existing 1200 to 1700); h. The associated costs would be recoverable through increased fees.
11. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS/ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT COST ANALYSIS
1. All discretionary projects would need to perform a "fiscal impact
analysis," which would include the cost of their roadway improvement
As part of the fiscal impact analysis, staff requirements include
research of maps, site review, cost estimates, and their appropriate
breakdowns by type of funding and alternatives. This would require additional 16 staff members.
2. Preliminary Engineering Section
2.00 Senior Civil Engineers $ 122,406 6.00 Associate Civil Engineers 321,087
6.00 Assistant Civil Engineers 273,247
2.00 Word Processor Operators 54,871
16.00 Personnel and fringe benefits 8 771,611
Appl ied overhead (42.9%) $ 331,021
Non-personnel expense - (suppl ies , equipment, mileage, utilities, data processing) $ 320,000 Additional floor space - 3000 square
feet at $18.00 per square foot $ 54,000
TOTAL BUDGET $1,476,632 (say $I,50(
3. Assumptions
a. The current FBA/DIF program and procedure remains intact as current'
budgeted ;
b. Other groups are comparably staffed to handle their part of these nc fiscal impact analyses (particularly Financial Management and Facil-
ities Financing); c. All 1700 "discretionary" projects do a fiscal impact analysis, whicl quantifies all costs of required improvements and categorizes them;
ATTACHHEN
1 e e
.I MEMO - PLAN! Initiative Budget Impact December 28, 1989
Page 4
d. The associated costs of the PLAN! initiative would be recoverable
through increased fees.
Allen w Holden, Jr.
Deputy Director
AH : 1 mw/b j 1 ah/pl an/me , ,167
cc: Victor Roll inger Frank Belock William Schernpers, Jr. Walt Huffman Paul Fiske Patti Boekamp Kristi Berg George Parkinson
Jonathan Levy
ATTAcHpfENT