CDBG is a federal grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. CDBG is administered on a formula basis to entitled cities, urban counties, and states to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low and moderate income individuals. Eligible activities that may be proposed for funding include, but are not limited to, housing, economic development, and public facilities and improvements. (Ord. 3352 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3238 § 2 (Exh. B), 2012. Formerly 19.87.002).

Business improvement districts (BIDs) or property and business improvement districts (PBIDs) are mechanisms for assessing and collecting fees that can be used to fund various improvements and programs within the district. There are several legal forms of BIDs authorized by California law. The most common types are districts formed under the Parking and Business Improvement Act of 1989. Business improvement areas formed under the 1989 law impose a fee on the business licenses of the businesses operating in the area, rather than the property owners. The collected funds are used to pay for the improvements and activities specified in the formation documents. A similar assessment procedure was authorized by the PBID Law of 1994. The distinction is that the PBID makes the assessment on the real property and not on the business. A PBID is currently in operation in the City’s downtown area. Other areas of the Bayfront Specific Plan may also be ideally suited for BID funding.

The range of activities that can potentially be funded through BIDs and PBIDs is broad and includes parking improvements, sidewalk cleaning, streetscape maintenance, streetscape improvements (e.g., furniture, lighting, planting, etc.), promotional events, marketing and advertising, security patrols, public art, trash collection, landscaping, and other functions. Generally speaking, the BID format works well for marketing and other programmatic activities that serve to directly benefit area businesses (i.e., tenants), whereas a PBID may be more appropriate for permanent physical improvements that stand to improve property values in the area. Given the size and diversity of the LCP Planning Area, it may be appropriate for separate BIDs or PBIDs to be formed for different regions within the plan area. In this way, the collected funding could be more specifically targeted to the unique improvement and programmatic needs of each district. (Ord. 3352 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3238 § 2 (Exh. B), 2012. Formerly 19.87.003).

Property tax limitations imposed by Proposition 13, resulting in the decline in property taxes available for public projects, has led local governments to adopt alternative revenue sources to accommodate public facility and infrastructure demands resulting from growth. Development impact fees are one of those sources. AB 1600 (Cortese), which became effective on January 1, 1989, regulates the way that impact fees are imposed on development projects. Impact fees are one-time charges applied to offset the additional public facility provision costs from new development. This may include provision of additional services, such as water and sewer systems, roads, schools, libraries, and parks and recreation facilities. Impact fees cannot be used for operation, maintenance, alteration, or replacement of existing capital facilities and cannot be channeled to the local government’s discretionary general funds. An impact fee cannot be an arbitrary amount and must be explicitly linked to the added cost of providing the facility towards which it is collected.

The City already has a range of impact fees that are updated periodically. It is important, however, to realize that there are two primary aspects of capital costs (based on which impacts fees are collected) – land costs and building costs. Though the latter can be estimated at a City-wide level and adjusted periodically using appropriate inflation factors, land cost estimation is more complicated, especially when one considers significant variations in land values within the City and the necessity to provide land intensive public facilities, such as parks. As a result, the land acquisition component of a standardized impact fee may not be consistent with the true costs involved. (Ord. 3352 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3238 § 2 (Exh. B), 2012. Formerly 19.87.004).

In 1987, voters approved the TransNet program – a half-cent sales tax to fund a variety of important transportation projects throughout the San Diego region. This 20-year, $3.3 billion transportation improvement program expired in 2008. In November 2004, 67 percent of the region’s voters supported Proposition A, which extends TransNet to 2048, thereby generating an additional $14 billion to be distributed among highway, transit, and local road projects in approximately equal thirds. In addition, it will support a robust public transportation system, including new Bus Rapid Transit services and carpool/managed lanes along many of the major freeways. Two percent of the available funds will be earmarked annually for bicycle paths and facilities, pedestrian improvements, and neighborhood safety projects. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) sets the priorities and allocates TransNet funds. (Ord. 3352 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3238 § 2 (Exh. B), 2012. Formerly 19.87.005).

A variety of funding options are available though federal, state, and local grant programs. Many of the grant programs target urban revitalization efforts, smart growth enhancements, and transportation planning and are provided on a competitive basis. Current grant programs, such as the Smart Growth Incentive Pilot Program administered through SANDAG, can provide significant funding toward projects that result in furthering smart growth approaches, such as the elements embodied in the principles of the Bayfront Specific Plan. (Ord. 3352 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3238 § 2 (Exh. B), 2012. Formerly 19.87.006).

The City receives revenue from a variety of sources, such as property taxes, sales taxes, fees for recreation classes, and plan checking. Revenue can be generally classified into three broad categories: program revenue, general revenue, and restricted revenue. Depending on the revenue source, the general fund may be used for a variety of purposes, such as capital improvement projects or streets, sewers, storm drains, and other infrastructure maintenance improvements. (Ord. 3352 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3238 § 2 (Exh. B), 2012. Formerly 19.87.007).

Examples of other funding sources that may be considered to assist in the implementation of the community benefits outlined in this chapter include ad valorem property taxes, the sales and use tax, the business license tax, and the transient occupancy tax. (Ord. 3352 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3238 § 2 (Exh. B), 2012. Formerly 19.87.008).

The funding mechanisms of this chapter will be used to implement a system of public works as outlined in CVMC 19.85.007. The remainder of Chapters 19.85 and 19.86 CVMC represent a body of standards necessary to carry out the objectives of the Bayfront Specific Plan with regard to regulating development and maintenance of private property. (Ord. 3352 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3238 § 2 (Exh. B), 2012. Formerly 19.87.009).