HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-City Administrator
CITV<6F SAN BERNARDINOQ. RE~EST FOR COUNCIL ~ION
From:
James C. Richardson, Deputy City
Administrator-Development".~tte~"'M} H: N. fllliiect:
Oept:
Administration
I.' -.'"1; ~11t. ." r:t O~~ 2 ::; U
::.-_J t-.-j',J v
Appointment of a General Plan Task
Force by City Administrator
Oats: August 2, 1989
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
7/21l/89
Legislative Review Con~ittee recommended establishment of a Growth
Management Task Force.
Recommended motion:
That the City Administrator appoint a Growth Management Task Force to formulate
and report on a growth management policy for review by' the Legislative Review
Committee.
cc: Marshall W. Julian, City Administrator
Brad Kilger, Planning Director
Signature
Contact person:_~L!~lm-=~ C. Richardson, Deputy City
Administrator-Development Services
Suppo(ting data attached: Staff Report and Work Plan
Phone:
5270
Ward:
City-Wide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:_1!.~__~ ~
Source: (Acct. No,)
(Acct. OescriPtionL
.~__~_~_ ,._~~_ Finance:
Council Notes:
15-li262
Agenda Item No.
II
. '0 ' 0 0 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL A~TION
STAFF REPORT
The Legislative Review Committee (LRC) of the Common
Council has been reviewing a policy for grow~h management. A
detailed policy, work plan and schedule was presented on
April 6, 1989 to the LRC and revised on June 1st after
additional staff review. At the June 8th LRC meeting, the
Building Industry Association (BIA) and the Planning
commision were asked to comment on the policy. The BIA
expressed concerns regarding infill projects, a grandfather
clause and procedures for administering. At their July 18,
1989 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the
Planning Department be directed to prepare a General Plan
element on growth management, establish a task force and use
the June 1st draft policy as a guideline for this work
program.
At the July 20, 1989 LRC meeting, the Planning
Commission's recommendations and the BIA comments were
reviewed. The LRC expressed concern about the time and
effort to accomplish the work program, as outlined, since
staff characterized the schedule as very ambitious.
Accordingly, the LRC felt that the formation of a Growth
Management Task Force, with periodic reports by staff to the
Committee, would demonstrate a committment to a growth
management policy without burdening staff with a new priority
that could jeopardize General Pl4n implementation measures,
as well as other City priorities. It is recommended that the
city Administrator appoint a Growth Management Task Force
composed of City staff. Under direction of the City
Administrator's Office, the Task Force will follow the
attached work plan and report ~o the LRC in 90 and 180 days
on progress.
I
\
.~~
ES C. RICHARDSON,
eputy City Administrator -
Development Services
8/0Z/8Y
h-02G4
c
o
o
':>
WORlt PLAB J'OR GROWTH KANAGBMBRT PLAB
(NOTE: Besponsibilities and participants are outlined.)
I. Public Policy Review (Mayor and Common council)
A. Policy Questions to be addressed/answered
1. Should the City establish service levels and
facility standards?
2. Should the City determine adequacy of
services?
3. Is there a desire to have a policy on equity
of services?
4. What action is to be taken on the Growth
Management policy?
a. policy Statement by Motion
b. Resolution Adopting policy
c. Ordinance Enactment
d. Voter Ratification of Initiative
B. Overriding Issues Clarified
1. Establish a Quality of life index with
measures?
2. Adopt a goal for amenities and aesthetic
improvements?
3. Pursue a policy on jobs and housing balance?
C. Legislative Review Committee (LRC)
1. Review Staff Recommendation/Information
2. Recommendation by LRC
3. Action by Mayor & Common Council
13.(02(89
o
o
o
:>
Growth Management outline
June 1, 1989
Page 2
II. Review Types of Development (Growth Management Task
Force)
A. Land Use
1. commercial
2. Industrial
3. Residential
a. single Family
b. Multi Family
4. Open space and Other
B. Public -vs- Private Development
c. Timing and priority of Development
1. Future Development
2. Existing Development
III. Review Private Development Process (Public/private
partnership committee)
A. Private Development Analysis
1. Market Analysis
2. Fiscal Impact Analysis
3. Economic Analysis
B. Project (Future) Development
1. Land Use Review
2. city cost/Benefit Analysis
3. Environmental Impact/Review
4. Planning & Development Permits
C. Private (Existing) Property Standards
1. Private Facilities Development
2.
Private Property Maintenance
H/()l/H~
.
'0
o
o
o
Growth Management outline
June 1, 1989
Page 3
3. city Enforcement Activities
IV. Review Public Development Process (Growth Management
Task Force>
A. Public Facilities Inventory
1. Public Buildings & Facilities
a. Fire stations
b. police Station/Offices
c. Libraries
d. Cultural Facilities
e. Recreation Centers
f. City Offices
g. Joint Use of Multi Purpose Centers
h. Public Schools
2. Public spaces/Uses
a. streets
b. Drainage/Flood Control
c. Traffic Control
d. Street Lighting
e. Public Right of Ways
f. Parks and Open space
3. Public utilities
a. Water
b. Sewer
c. Telephone
d. Gas
e. Electric
f. Cable Television
8/02/89
- -
-
o
o
o
Growth Management outline
June 1, 1989
Page 4
B. Public Sector Information
1. Demographic (Geobase) Information
2. One-stop Center
a. Construction Activities/Permits
b. Permit Tracking System
3. General Plan Maintenance/Updating
4. Public Information Work Program
C. Public Facilities Analysis
1. Facilities Standards
2. Existing Public Facility Needs
3. Infrastructure Demand
D. City Services Analysis
1. City service Levels
a. Staffing
b. Maintenance Standards
c. City service Needs/Deficiencies
2. Service/Performance Measurement and
Reporting
E. Review City Financial Resources
1. Developer Fees
a. Full Cost Recovery?
b. AB 1600 - Fees to Area of Benefit
2. General Fund Revenues
3. special Funds
4. Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Funds
5. General Obligation Bonds
B/OL/BY
o
.
o
o
o
Growth Management Outline
June 1, 1989
Page 5
6. Community Development Block Grant
7. Other Sources
V. Infrastructure planning and Scheduling (Growth
Management Task Force and Mayor and Common Council)
A. General Plan
1. General Plan Implementation
2. Development Code Adoption
a. Phase I
b. Phase II
3. General Plan Amendment(s)
a. 1st Amendment
b. 2nd Amendment
B. 1990-91 operating Budget Impact
1. Service Level Review/Priorities Set
2. Review General Plan Goals
3. Capital Budget Impact
C. Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
1. Review Facilities Deficiencies/Needs
2. Identify 1991-92 operating Budget Impact
3. 5-Year CIP Budget Prepared and Presented
4. planning commission and Mayor & Common
council Review
VI. Establish Public/Private partnership Committee
A. City of San Bernardino
B. Other Governmental Districts
1. School District(s)
8/02/89
::)
.
o
o
o
o
Growth Management Outline
June 1, 1989
Page 6
2. San Bernardino county
3. East Valley Water District
4. Omni Trans, SANBAG, etc.
C. Business and Industry
1. San Bernardino Area Chamber of Commerce
2. Merchants Associations, Main street,
Hispanic Chamber, Crosstown, etc.
3. Board of Realtors
4. Building & Industry Association
5. Development Advisory Committee
D. Public Input
1. Private organizations
2. Citizen-Neighborhood Groups/Meetings
3. Public Hearing by Project as Required
VII. Establish Development strategies
A. Interim Development Measures
B. Annexations - Sphere of Influence
1. county Islands
2. Expansion of Municipal Boundaries
C. Redevelopment (existing) -vs- New (future)
Development
D. Development "Tools"
1. RDA Project Areas
2. Renovation & Rehabilitation of Facilities
3. Infill Housing and Development
4. Development Incentives
8/02/89
5.
Negotiation for Amenities
c
o
o
:>
Growth Management Outline
,June 1, 1989
Page 7
6. Interim or Phasing Projects
7. Growth Limitation Procedures/Conditions
8. Development Agreements
VIII. Implementation Plan
A. Identify Issues
1. Implement Short Term Issues
2. Implement Long Term Issues
B. Growth Management Task Force
1. Organizational Meeting
2. City Administrator's Office
3. Development Departments
4. Other City Departments
5. Other Agencies/Groups
C. Formal Reports (Growth Management Task Force)
1. Prepare Initial Report
2. Final Report
D. Mayor & Common Council Follow-up Review
Prepared by: James C. Richardson, Deputy City Administrator
- Development Services, June 1, 1989.
10/01/109