Urban Issues     9/11
Documents Current Events Resources Gallery  

Welcome :  Home :  Current-Events Contact us   |  Site-Map   |  Statistics

Current Events

Table of Contents

  1. Big Box Ordinance
    1. Big Box Review - CURRENT WORK
    2. Big Box Review Subcommittee - General Information
    3. Big Box Review Subcommittee - Weekly Meetings
    4. Big Box Review Subcommittee - Working Papers
    5. Commentary on the Big Box Review
    6. Documents Relevant to Big Box Review
    7. Documents Relevant to Land Use in General

  2. Traffic
    1. Traffic Physics and Traffic Analysis

  3. Miscellaneous, Amusing, .....
    1. Ising Model Analysis of the Developer-Neighbor (D-N) Problem
    2. From the Wall Street Journal
    3. Philosophical conversations

 

Big Box Ordinance

 

Big Box Review - CURRENT WORK

  1. Mayor and Council - Hearing 3/24/03
    1. Notice of Public Hearing Before Mayor and Council, March 24, 2003
      [PDF file, 15.3 Kbytes]
    2. Attachment A: Draft Land Use Code Amendment, 3/24/03 - Draft Revision of Big Box Ordinance
      [PDF file, 142.4 Kbytes]
    3. Attachment B: Proposed Planning Commission Amendment to Draft, 3/24/03 - from Planning Commission Review Hearing, 2/5/03
      [PDF file, 8.3 Kbytes]
    4. Comments in Outline Form on the Intent and Structure of the Draft Ordinance, 3/24/03 - prepared by JAR
      [PDF file, 24.0 Kbytes]
    5. Outline of the Draft Amendement and Comparison with Current 1999 Big Box Ordinance, 3/24/03 - prepared by JAR
      [PDF file, 41.0 Kbytes]
  2. Planning Commission Review - Hearing 2/5/03
    1. Agenda of the Planning Commission meeting, 2/5/03 - agenda item 2, public hearing (continued from 1/8/03) on draft amendment [deferred to be last public hearing of the evening]
      [PDF file, 19.9 Kbytes]
    2. Memorandum from Albert Elias, Executive Secretary, 2/5/03 - Draft LUC Amendment -- Large Retail Establishments (Big Boxes) -- Continued Public Hearing: issue, recommendation, review of proposed amendment, proposed review processes, proposed performance standards, issues raised by the Planning Commission (on 12/4/02 and 1/8/03), staff response to identified issues(10% limit, administrative vs legislative procedure, three tiers to two, changes in wording, aethestic requirements, timely infrastructure, warning beepers, flow charts), conclusion.
      [PDF file, 153.4 Kbytes]
    3. Attachement A: Draft LUC Amendment, 2/5/03 [two significant changes and many clarifying changes from 1/8/03 version; significant changes are in setback for delivery truck parking (3.5.9.7.C.1.c.2) and elimination of hours restriction on loading/unloading (3.5.9.7.C.1.g.2)]
      [PDF file, 226.7 Kbytes]
    4. Attachement B1: The Potential Economic and Fiscal Impact of Supercenters in San Diego, a Critical Analysis - for San Diego County Taxpayers Association, by Rea and Parker Research; an analysis of the Boarnet-Crane report (item 8 under Planning Commission Review - Hearing 1/8/03)
      [PDF file, 2338.3 Kbytes]
    5. Attachement B2: The Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern California, Jobs, Wages, and Municipal Finances - the Executive Summary of the report by Boarnet and Crane, prepared for the Orange County Business Council
      [PDF file, 1621.1 Kbytes]
    6. Attachement C: Letter with enclosures, from Lewis and Roca, representing Wal-Mart, 1/22/03 - by Mary Beth Savel; questions/comments/suggestions/requests for clarification about proposed amendment; origin of many of the staff changes in draft amendment; two of the suggested changes are substantive (see above); comments on 10% food restriction; enclosures (research reports on competitive food prices, from USB Warburg, 11/14/00 and 4/17/02; letter from Wal-Mart, responding to Boarnet-Crane report, 6/1/00).
      [PDF file, 7728.1 Kbytes]
    7. Attachement C1: Letter from Lewis and Roca only
      [PS file, 7834.0 Kbytes]
    8. Attachement C4: Letter from Wal-Mart only
      [PS file, 3405.8 Kbytes]
    9. Attachement D: Staff Response to Large Retail Establishment Questions - questions from Thomas Sayler-Brown and Mary Beth Savel
      [PDF file, 15.3 Kbytes]
    10. Managing Maryland's Growth: Models and Guidelines; "Big Box" Retail Development - by Maryland Department of Planning, October, 2001; history and analysis of the Big Box problem {worth reading]
      [PDF file, 363.9 Kbytes]
    11. Memo to Planning Commission, from John Rupley, 2/5/03 - comment on Delivery Truck Parking (3.5.9.7.C.1.c.2) and Hours of Operation (3.5.9.7.C.1.g.2)]; suggest restoring original language of BBSC draft
      [PDF file, 59.8 Kbytes]
    12. Subcommittee Minutes of July 18, 2002 [describes specification of 500 ft separation of site from residential for by right procedure]
      [HTML file, 60.5 Kbytes]
    13. summary of actions of Planning Commission on 2/5/03 - email from Sarah More to Chris Tanz [describes recommended changes (hours, noise, and by-right site characteristics) in staff draft of 2/5/03, which itself has significant changes (hours, delivery truck parking) from BBSC draft of 11/13/02; recommendation to M/C for review of other commercial uses]
      [TXT file, 3.4 Kbytes]
    14. Notes on hearing on draft amendment, 2/5/03 - by JAR; contains a list of staff changes in the BBSC version of the draft amendment, with comments; also contains a list of the changes recommended by the Planning Commission, with comments; one of the Planning Commission changes effectively destroys the intent of the amendment.
      [TXT file, 10.8 Kbytes]

  3. Planning Commission Review - Hearing 1/8/03
    1. Agenda of the Planning Commission meeting, 1/8/03 - agenda item 4, public hearing on draft amendment [deferred to be last public hearing of the evening]
      [PDF file, 20.7 Kbytes]
    2. Memorandum from Albert Elias, Executive Secretary, 1/8/03 - Draft LUC Amendment -- Large Retail Establishments (Big Boxes) -- Public Hearing: issue, staff recommendation, BBSC recommendation, background, introduction, BBSC discussion, proposed review processes, proposed performance standards, BBSC discussion of food restriction, staff concerns, food/beverage sales in I-2, responses to issues raised at study session, conclusion.
      [PDF file, 160.1 Kbytes]
    3. Attachement A: Overview of the Proposed Amendment - zones, site characteristics, traffic impact, setbacks, site amenities, aesthetic character of buildings, additional requirements in the Zoning Examiner process (i.e., additional standards)
      [PDF file, 21.4 Kbytes]
    4. Attachement B: Memorandum from Rob Tomlinson, Chairperson, Big Box Review Subcommittee, 1/8/03 - LUC Amendment -- Large Retail Establishments (Big Boxes): Letter of recommendation from the Subcommittee
      [DOC file, 179.7 Kbytes]
    5. Attachement C: Draft LUC Amendment, 1/8/03 [minimally changed from 12/4/02 version]
      [PDF file, 145.4 Kbytes]
    6. Attachement D: Comparison Chart of Existing/Proposed Amendment [minimally different from Comparison table published previously -- see under "Draft Amendment and Ancillary Documents", below]
      [PDF file, 41.3 Kbytes]
    7. Attachement E: Subcommittee Minutes of April 4, 2002 [contains testimony of Gary Oaks, that Wal-Mart generates less traffic than a comparably-sized shopping center]
      [PDF file, 9.2 Kbytes]
    8. Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern California: Jobs, Wages, and Municipal Finances - by Marlon Boarnet and Randall Crane, September, 1999 -- this study, for Orange County, also is the basis of the Rea and Parker analysis for San Diego County
      [PDF file, 2812 Kbytes]
    9. Notes on hearing on draft amendment, 1/8/03 - by JAR
      [TXT file, 6.4 Kbytes]

  4. Planning Commission Review - Study Session 12/4/02
    1. Agenda of the Planning Commission meeting, 12/4/02 - agenda item 7, study session on draft amendment
      [PDF file, 99.2 Kbytes]
    2. Memorandum from Albert Elias, Executive Secretary, 12/4/02 - Draft LUC Amendment -- Large Retail Establishments (Big Boxes): background, planning considerations, conclusions, and staff recommendation
      [PDF file, 94.8 Kbytes]
    3. Notes on study session on draft amendment, 12/4/02 - by JAR
      [TXT file, 4.3 Kbytes]

  5. Draft Amendment and Ancillary Documents
    1. Draft Land Use Code Amendment - 11/13/02 (Draft revision of the Big Box Ordinance) - Submitted to the Planning Commission for review. Study Session held at the December 4 meeting of the Planning Commission. Public Hearing scheduled for the January 8 meeting of the Planning Commission.
      [PDF file, 23.8 Kbytes]
    2. Current Big Box Ordinance of 9/27/99, Amended 1/29/2002
      [PDF file, 25.4 Kbytes]
    3. Comments in Outline Form on the Intent and Structure of the Draft Ordinance - prepared by JAR
      [PDF file, 23.9 Kbytes]
    4. Comparison of the Draft Amendement with Current 1999 Big Box Ordinance - prepared by Planning Department staff
      [PDF file, 39.0 Kbytes]
    5. Outline of the Draft Amendement and Comparison with Current 1999 Big Box Ordinance - prepared by JAR
      [PDF file, 40.1 Kbytes]

  6. Background Documents - recent only
    1. Minutes of the 10/29/02 BBSC meeting
      [PDF file, 13.0 Kbytes]
    2. Minutes of the 10/22/02 BBSC meeting
      [PDF file, 22.6 Kbytes]
    3. Minutes of the 10/15/02 BBSC meeting
      [PDF file, 11.0 Kbytes]
    4. Proposed Draft [fb; jar; tsb], 10/22/02, with interleaved comments [jar] - Text of draft amendment used at 10/22/02 and 10/29/02 BBSC meetings (the "-" version, with comments stripped, was used at the meetings; this is the "+" version, with interleaved comments). Revisions of the text made at these meetings and a few changes made afterward generated the final draft amendment of 11/13/02.
      [PDF file, 91.4 Kbytes]
      The 10/22/02 proposed draft was constructed from:
    5. Proposed Draft [fb; jar; tsb], 10/29/02 - prepared by staff from 10/22/02 proposed draft amendement and discussion at 10/22/02 BBSC meeting. Overstrike/underscore version, displaying differences between 10/29/02 proposed draft and 10/8/02 staff draft.
      [PDF file, 73.9 Kbytes]
    6. Big Box Revisions; Framework for Compromise, 10/1/02 - by Frank Bangs
      [DOC file, 37.4 Kbytes]
    7. Staff Draft 10/8/02 - staff draft of Big Box amendment, October 8, 2002.
      [PDF file, 47.1 Kbytes]
    8. Proposed Draft [fb; jar; tsb], 10/15/02 - 10/12/02 changes proposed by neighborhood group merged with 10/8/02 staff draft by John Rupley, vetted on October 10 and submitted to BBSC on October 15, 2002, by Frank Bangs, John Rupley, and Thomas Sayler-Brown [fb; jar; tsb].
      [PDF file, 56.9 Kbytes]
    9. Proposed Draft 10/15/02, overstrike/underscore version - displays differences between 10/15/02 proposed draft and 10/8/02 staff draft.
      [PDF file, 53.9 Kbytes]

 

Big Box Review Subcommittee - General Information

When the Big Box ordinance was enacted on September 27, 1999, review of it was to be carried out after one year. Mayor and Council directed this review on December 4, 2000. The was done in a Planning Commission study session on October 3, 2001, and in a public hearing on November 7, 2001. Owing to questions brought forward at the hearing, it was discontinued for 60 days for direction from Mayor and Council. On December 10, 2001, Mayor and Council directed that the draft amendments be forwarded to them. On January 28, 2002, Mayor and Council considered the draft amendments, enacted one part (on parking), and remanded the ordinance to the Planning Commission for full review.

For detailed information, see the Planning Commission Archives and the archives of the Mayor and Council Agendas.

On March 6, 2002, the Planning Commission established a subcommittee to carry out a comprehensive public review, appointing to the committee Rob Tomlinson, Grace Evans, and Bob Morgan. The commission expected to appoint also four additional members, two representing the business/developer perspective, and two the neighborhood perspective. A Planning Department memorandum of March 6, 2002, describes the background for the review (summarized above) and suggests a review process. Attachements to the memorandum give the Big Box ordinance as enacted and a comparison of this ordinance with one recently enacted by the County Board of Supervisors.

  1. Planning Dept. memorandum 3/6/02 [PDF file, 89 Kbytes]
  2. attachment, Big Box ordinance 3/6/02 performance criteria [PDF file, 254 Kbytes]
  3. attachment, comparison City-County ordinances 3/6/02 [PDF file, 122 Kbytes]

On April 3, 2002, the Planning Commission decided to limit the subcommittee membership to the three Planning Commission members, owing to the difficulty of finding untainted industry representatives. At organizational meetings of the subcommittee, during March, four additional members had been chosen: Joyce Joosten and Constance Diamos, neighborhood representatives, and Thomas Saylor-Brown and Mary Beth Savel, for the industry. The City Attorney noted that Ms. Savel had a conflict of interest. Thus the Planning Commission decided that no outside member should be appointed. The outside members agreed to come as non-voting public participants. Subsequently, following the May 1, 2002 meeting of the Planning Commission, two of the outside members joined as voting members of the subcommittee, Joyce Joosten and Thomas Saylor-Brown. The intent is that the subcommittee report to the Planning Commission by June, for a public hearing before the Planning Commission in July, and one before the Mayor and Council in August. [This timetable may be too ambitious.] All aspects of the ordinance will be reviewed; the ordinance will be compared with ordinances from other cities; public and expert input will be solicited.

  1. Planning Dept. memorandum, BBSC update 4/3/02 [PDF file, 41 Kbytes]
  2. attachment, City Attorney letter 3/20/02 [PDF file, 68 Kbytes]
  3. Planning Dept. memorandum, BBSC update 5/1/02 [PDF file, 115 Kbytes]
  4. Planning Dept. memorandum, BBSC update 6/5/02 [PDF file, 73 Kbytes]
  5. Planning Dept. Meeting Agenda 7/17/02 [PDF file, 97 Kbytes]
  6. Planning Dept. Meeting Agenda 8/7/02 [PDF file, 19 Kbytes]
  7. Planning Dept. memorandum, BBSC update 8/7/02 [PDF file, 23 Kbytes]

 

Big Box Review Subcommittee - Weekly Meetings

The public meetings of the Subcommittee (BBSC) began on April 4, 2002. They are held weekly from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. at the Himmel Park Library. They are typically attended by, in addition to the formal members of the subcommittee, 2-4 staff of the Planning Department, and ca. 5 public participants from neighborhoods and from a law firm and businesses. The agenda and minutes for the meetings can be retrieved from the Planning Commission Archives as PDF files. For convenience, following are links to HTML files of the minutes and to HTML or PDF files of several attachments:

  1. Minutes:
    1. minutes 4/4/02 [HTML file, 14 Kbytes]
    2. minutes 4/11/02 [HTML file, 21 Kbytes]
    3. minutes 4/18/02 [HTML file, 20 Kbytes]
    4. minutes 4/25/02 [HTML file, 20 Kbytes]
    5. minutes 5/2/02 [HTML file, 22 Kbytes]
    6. minutes 5/9/02 [HTML file, 24 Kbytes]
    7. minutes 5/16/02 [HTML file, 42 Kbytes]
    8. minutes 5/23/02 [HTML file, 44 Kbytes]
    9. minutes 5/30/02 [PDF file, 92 Kbytes]
    10. minutes 5/30/02 [TXT file, 14 Kbytes]
    11. minutes 6/6/02 [HTML file, 43 Kbytes]
    12. minutes 6/13/02 [HTML file, 29 Kbytes]
    13. minutes 6/20/02 [HTML file, 22 Kbytes]
    14. minutes 6/27/02 [HTML file, 12 Kbytes]
    15. minutes 7/11/02 [PDF file, 14 Kbytes]
    16. minutes 7/11/02 - revision 1 [TXT file, 7.3Kbytes]
    17. minutes 7/18/02 [HTML file, 61 Kbytes]
    18. minutes 7/25/02 [HTML file, 26 Kbytes]
    19. minutes 8/01/02 [HTML file, 27 Kbytes]
    20. minutes 8/08/02 [HTML file, 18 Kbytes]
    21. minutes 8/15/02 [HTML file, 31.0 Kbytes]
    22. minutes 8/22/02 [HTML file, 23.9 Kbytes]
    23. minutes 8/29/02 [HTML file, 19.0 Kbytes]
    24. minutes 9/5/02 [HTML file, 21.8 Kbytes]
    25. minutes 9/12/02 [HTML file, 24.0 Kbytes]
    26. minutes 9/19/02 [HTML file, 20.1 Kbytes]
    27. minutes 9/24/02 [HTML file, 20.2 Kbytes]
    28. minutes 10/1/02 [HTML file, 19.0 Kbytes]
    29. minutes 10/8/02 [HTML file, 20.7 Kbytes]
    30. minutes 10/15/02 [HTML file, 17.4 Kbytes]
    31. minutes 10/22/02 [HTML file, 52.1 Kbytes]
    32. minutes 10/29/02 [HTML file, 48.2 Kbytes]

  2. Attachments to the minutes and other relevant files:
    1. mission statement 5/9/02 [HTML file, 6 Kbytes]
    2. comparison of City and other ordinances 5/2/02 [PDF file, 44 Kbytes]
    3. Frank Bangs' memorandum 5/23/02 [HTML file, 28 Kbytes]
    4. LUC Sec 5.4.5 Components of Procedures 6/6/02 [PDF file, 102 Kbytes, 14 pages]
    5. LUC Sec 5.4.4.3 Appeal Procedures - Type III [PDF file, *for the record, too large* at 948 Kbytes, 2 pages]
    6. LUC Sec 5.4.3.5 Administrative Procedures - Type V Administrative 6/6/02 [PDF file, 83 Kbytes, 3 pages]
    7. LUC Sec 5.4.2.3 Legislative Procedures - Type III Legislative 6/6/02 [PDF file, 94 Kbytes, 5 pages]
    8. LUC Sec 5.4 Administrative Procedures - all above Sec., and more [PDF file, 421 Kbytes, 62 pages]
    9. LUC Sec 3.5.9.7 Large Retail Establishment Design Criteria 6/6/02 [PDF file, 90 Kbytes, 6 pages]
    10. memorandum from Sarah More 6/6/02 - Outline for a tier of procedural requirements [PDF file, 74 Kbytes]
    11. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 6/13/02:
      C-2 Commercial Zone - LRE sections 6/13/02 [HTML file, 18 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 6/13/02 [HTML file, 29 Kbytes]
    12. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 7/11/02:
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 7/11/02 [PDF file, 25.6 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 7/11/02 [PDF file, 23.5 Kbytes]
      C-2 Commercial Zone - annotated working draft 7/11/02 [PDF file, 13.9 Kbytes]
    13. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 7/25/02:
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 7/25/02 [PDF file, 28.0 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 7/25/02 [PDF file, 32.2 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 7/25/02 [HTML file, 80.5 Kbytes]
    14. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 8/1/02:
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 8/1/02 [PDF file, 28.5 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 8/1/02 [PDF file, 34.4 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 8/1/02 [HTML file, 79.6 Kbytes]
    15. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 8/8/02:
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 8/8/02 [PDF file, 47.4 Kbytes]
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 8/8/02 [HTML file, 110 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 8/8/02 [PDF file, 30.4 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 8/8/02 [HTML file, 77.2 Kbytes]
      Development Review Board (DRB, LUC 5.1.8) 8/8/02 [PDF file, 16.1 Kbytes]
    16. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 8/15/02:
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 8/15/02 [PDF file, 47.0 Kbytes]
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 8/15/02 [HTML file, 110 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 8/15/02 [PDF file, 30.4 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 8/15/02 [HTML file, 77.2 Kbytes]
      Procedures (Admin, Appeals - relevant to LRE) 8/15/02 [PDF file, 23.4 Kbytes]
    17. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 8/29/02:
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 8/29/02 [PDF file, 46.7 Kbytes]
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 8/29/02 [HTML file, 107 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 8/29/02 [PDF file, 32.2 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 8/29/02 [HTML file, 80.7 Kbytes]
      Procedures (Admin, Appeals - relevant to LRE) 8/29/02 [PDF file, 24.9 Kbytes]
    18. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 9/12/02:
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 9/12/02 [PDF file, 255.3 Kbytes]
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 9/12/02 [HTML file, 96.7 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 9/12/02 [PDF file, 302.8 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 9/12/02 [HTML file, 113.2 Kbytes]
    19. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 9/19/02:
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 9/19/02 [PDF file, 34.9 Kbytes]
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 9/19/02 [HTML file, 99.1 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 9/19/02 [PDF file, 46.2 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 9/19/02 [HTML file, 114.1 Kbytes]
    20. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 10/8/02:
      LRE Performance Criteria 10/8/02 [PDF file, 47.1 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 10/8/02 [HTML file, 110.0 Kbytes]
    21. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 10/22/02:
      LRE Performance Criteria 10/22/02 - Rupley/Bangs revisions, compiled by Staff and based on 10/15/02 BBSC meeting [PDF file, 53.9 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 10/22/02 - Rupley/Bangs revisions, compiled by Staff and based on 10/15/02 BBSC meeting [HTML file, 66.3 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 10/22/02 - Staff draft [PDF file, 42.8 Kbytes]
    22. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 10/29/02:
      LRE Performance Criteria 10/29/02 - Rupley/Bangs revisions, compiled by Staff and based on 10/15/02 and 10/22/02 BBSC meetings [PDF file, 73.9 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 10/29/02 - Rupley/Bangs revisions, compiled by Staff and based on 10/15/02 and 10/22/02 BBSC meetings [HTML file, 101.6 Kbytes]
    23. Draft revision of the Big Box Ordinance - 11/13/02 - Text submitted to the Planning Commission for their advance review. The Study Session is tentatively scheduled for the December 4 Planning Commission meeting.
      Draft Land Use Code Amendment - 11/13/02 [PDF file, 23.8 Kbytes]
      Draft Land Use Code Amendment - 11/13/02 [HTML file, 27.4 Kbytes]

 

Big Box Review Subcommittee - Working Papers

The documents summarized in this section and most of the larger set listed under Documents Relevant to Big Box Review, Working Papers (A.5) were produced by a small but devoted group who have met over several months.

 

Issues of Concern to Affected Parties (5/31/02)

At the April 18, 2002, meeting, the Planning Department listed what had been identified to them as being issues of concern to the affected parties, neighbors and Big-Box developers. The following list, issues-list.html, builds upon that memorandum and information from the minutes of the Subcommittee meetings:

  1. Neighbors:

       Read more.....

 

Effecting Changes in the Big Box Ordinance (5/30/02)

Following is an outline proposal, in the file action-list.html, for changes in the Big Box ordinance. The first section lists facts, observations, and principles that I hope all can agree upon. The second is boilerplate, but apparently a formal statement of purpose is wanted. The last two sections suggest changes in the ordinance, based on splitting the universe of possible LRE sitings into three parts: approval by right (e.g., siting in industrial zones), approval after negotiation between developers, neighbors and City (siting near residential property), and approval effectively impossible (siting near Historic Districts, etc.). The three-tiered regulatory structure would be effected by use of strongly different performance criteria between the site classes. The proposal is in outline form; specific performance criteria are generally not considered. The proposal takes into account the issues of concern for the affected parties (see also Planning Department memorandum 4/17/02), discussion during the Subcommittee meetings about by right approval and fully-protected sites, and the memorandum of Frank Bangs 5/23/02.

I. Facts and principles agreed upon:

  1. LRE has an outsize impact, recognizably different from traditional retail:
  2. Non-linear effect of combining two or more LRE (Power Center).
  3. LRE **should** be sited with little restriction in some parts of City:
  4. LRE **should not** be sited in some other parts of city:
  5. LRE should be sited with care in residential areas of the city:
  6. LRE is an asset to the community: cheap; wide merchandise range; jobs.
  7. LRE is a detriment to the community: disrupts established businesses and shopping patterns; for some sites, inappropriate land use; jobs.
  8. LRE leaves behind vacant hulls: encourage redevelopment.

       Read more.....

 

Proposed Purpose/Intent and Applicability/Procedure Sections (6/13/02)

This document is out of date and of little value except as an expression of early intent.

Following are proposed Purpose/Intent and Applicability/Procedure sections (6/13/02) for a revised Big Box Ordinance, based on the Sarah More memorandum (6/4/02) and the Draft Amendment of January 28, 2002.

The Purpose/Intent section states that the BB ordinance (a) should protect, by high standards specified in the Perfomance Criteria, the most fragile neighborhoods adjacent to Big Box development, and (b) should allow flexibility with regard to design and administrative procedures through agreements reached by early and deep involvement of neighbors in meetings with the developer.

The Applicability/Procedure section incorporates the procedures of both the Sarah More memorandum and the January 28 Draft Amendment and adds to the procdures: (a) a more explicit statement that "by right" sites should be distant from residential and historic property, (b) a voting process associated with pre-application meetings that quantifies the extent of neighbor-developer agreement, (c) a mechanism for use of the result of this voting in reaching administrative decisions, and (d) a formal post-approval meeting, like the Tripartite Commission established by the El Con Development Agreement. 

3.5.9.7 Large Retail Establishment

A. Purpose and Intent

LRE have an outsized impact, recognizably different from that of
traditional retail, characterized conjointly by:  long hours of
operation; warehouse scale and style; heavy truck traffic and activity;
heavy customer traffic; outdoor sales; non-linear effect of combination
with other retail on site.

The intent of these performance criteria is to optimally protect and
accommodate the interests of the owner and developer of
an LRE site, of the owners and residents of nearby properties and
businesses, and of the citizens of Tucson. The performance criteria
and procedures are specifically intended to:

[.........]

B. Applicability and Procedure.

Each Large Retail Establishment shall be subject to approval pursuant
to one of the following procedures.

	1. Exception. The provisions of Sec. 3.5.9.7 shall not apply
	for LRE:

		a. on sites that meet the following
		conditions:
[.........]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

       Read more.....

 

Proposed Performance Criteria (7/28/02)

This document is out of date and of little value except as an expression of early intent.

The Proposed Performance Criteria are suggested revisions for the Performance Criteria of the current Big Box Ordinance. The revisions principally address neighborhood concerns. They were developed incrementally , starting with a 6/6/02 draft of Sections B.1-3, and communally in a series of "pre-bbsc" meetings.

These draft Criteria are in narrative style. The intent of the BBSC is to translate and restructure the narrative-style LRE code into LUC format, for consistency with the body of the code and for enhanced precision. The narrative-style 7/28/02 version referenced here possibly is the last in its line; working in the LUC-code format has taken precedence. The narrative-style text remains useful as being easy-to-read yet containing most of the current approved revisions and proposed revisions of Sections B.1-13, as embodied in current approved LUC-code-format version and the proposed revisions of this document. 

B. Site Design and Relationship to Surrounding Community.

1. Vehicular Access.  

The project site shall provide primary access from an arterial street
as designated by the adopted Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan.
Alternate access can also be provided from a street that is not
designated by the MS&R Plan, provided it can be shown that any
negative impacts on residential uses or residentially zoned properties
can be mitigated.

UNRESOLVED:
a. ...primary access from an [existing | planned in 5 years | ...] arterial 
[with minimum four (4) lanes and fifty (50) foot half-width] ....

b. who pays for enhanced access, City or developer?

C. truck access even from arterial can affect adj. residential.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

       Read more.....

 

Comparison of Type III Legislative and Type V Administrative procedures (6/6/02)

A TXT file outlining the difference between two types of procedures used or suggested for LRE applications: Type III Legislative procedure; and Type V Administrative procedure.

Also, a modification of the Type V Administrative procedure is suggested, to retain its streamlined approval procedure while introducing a broader appeal procedure. 

The Type III Legislative procedure (T3L) is essentially identical to the
Type V Administrative procedure (T5A), up through the Zoning Examiner's
decision.

At this point:
	
	T5A -> approval with permits, etc

		or if a party of record appeals

	    -> Type III appeal

       Read more.....

 

Proposed Changes in the Draft LRE-Related Sections of the Code - LUC-Code Format (8/15/02 - 8/21/02)

This document is out of date and of little value except as an expression of early intent.

The document proposed changes in performance criteria contains proposed new language, ranging from change in a word or phrase to replacement or addition of an entire section. Only neighborhood-sensitive issues are addressed. The document contains also a justification of each proposed change. It references a package of revisions for the Big Box ordinance [PDF file, 47 Kbytes] found under "pre-bbsc" group meetings. The short file summary of proposed changes in performance criteria contains only the proposed new language; the two-page list of proposed changes for C-2 zone gives one-line descriptions within a list of the performance criteria applicable to the C-2 zone and a Type V Administrative procedure. Related files: an uncontaminated list of the LRE performance criteria for the C-2 zone for the by-right, Type IV Administrative, and Type V Administrative procedures, and a table of differences between C-2 and other zones.

The Planning Department maintains a draft version of the LRE-relevant sections of the Code and incorporates the changes approved each week by the BBSC: draft Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections and draft LRE Performance Criteria. The documents of the preceding paragraph, describing proposed changes in the Code, are constructed with reference to the Planning Department draft version.

Work in the BBSC meetings has been lately with LUC-code draft versions of the Performance Criteria and Zones sections. Revisions of the Code have been approved piece-wise: the committee considers a particular approval procedure for a particular zone, e.g., by-right approval for the C-2 zone (the nominal reference state); then Criteria judged applicable to that class are discussed, formulated, and approved by vote; Planning Department staff then writes or revises code for that section of the Criteria, and for that zone, based upon the committee's formulation, which might have been narrative-format or even an expression of intent without formal structure.

Prior to adopting this review policy of working with a draft LUC-code version, Performance Criteria had been formulated for: site characteristics (A.1), vehicular access (A.2), and most of the section on setbacks applicable to the LRE structure (A.3.a). All other sections were written by staff to be mostly in accord with the 1/28/02 draft ordinance. Neighborhood-sensitive issues, apart from listing a range of setbacks, have not been discussed for sections other than A.1-2.

At this time, the committee has completed revision and approval of the Performance Criteria and Zone descriptions for a by-right procedure, for all applicable zones, and for a Special Exception Type IV Administrative ("T4A") procedure for all applicable zones. The T4A procedure is closely similar to the by-right, except one or more of the relatively weak Performance Criteria cannot be met, owing to a peculiarity of the site. There is relatively little involvement of neighborhood issues in the by-right and T4A procedures.

Attention will turn to a Special Exception procedure for sites with adjacent residential use. At this point, controversial Criteria will have to be decided upon within the context of a particular zone and a particular approval procedure, either Type V Administrative (T5A) or Type III Legislative (T3L).

       Read the document.....

 

Commentary on the Big Box Review

The substance of the ordinance is being addressed at this time by systematically and sequentially considering the procedures and performance criteria. The immediate intent is to produce an outline of a revised ordinance, including where possible draft language. The starting point for the outline is the procedures and performance criteria section of the current ordinance, with modifications drawn from the draft ordinance of January 28, 2002, from summaries and memoranda such as the memorandum of Sarah More for the 6/6/02 meetings, from presentations before the Subcommittee and discussions at meetings during April and May. Upon completion of the first pass, the Subcommittee is expected to revisit each section of the ordinance, deciding on specifics of procedures, of performance criteria, and of language. See the Minutes of the meetings for details.

The 6/6/02 meeting discussed the procedural issues given in Sarah More's memorandum and how this memorandum might be translated into a structure for the revised ordinance. No decision was reached. Discussion then centered on the performance criteria, which are to be addressed sequentially. (1) Vehicular access: from arterial only. (2) [new section] Traffic circulation: Truck cirulation setback; customer circulation ??. (3) buffers and setbacks: discussion begun. - separate into two sections, setbacks and buffers, to separate mitigation of noise and visual impact.

At the 6/13/02 meeting, Thomas Spendiarian, acoustical consultant, gave an effective and informed presentation on noise, noise attenuation, and site design. Among his comments: City ordinance should require stiffer noise limits than the county. Jim Maurer, Planning, gave an equally effective and informed presentation on the LUC format. The Committee voted to cast the ordinance in this style, by having Staff translate the narrative style which would continue to be used in Committee discussions. Only other substantive action was to move the Noise section of the Criteria to following the Setbacks/Buffers sections, for logical consistency.

The 6/20/02 meeting was largely a boosterish presentation by WalMart, which was extremely well done, including the handling of questions. A notable response - WalMart would prefer a process with formal and extensive pre-application neighborhood meetings, designed to obtain agreement between parties, over a process without such neighborhood meetings but allowing appeal by aggrieved neighbors. John Rupley presented a memorandum to the Committee Chairman, which noted that the LUC code format document presented at the 6/13/02 meeting included elements that had not been discussed by the Committee, did not include elements that had been discussed, and imposed a procedural structure on the draft ordinance that had not been discussed; Suggestions: discuss the procedural structure now; maintain a separate and detailed narrative-style record of the revised ordinance, incorporating decisions made at Committee meetings; review new additions to the narrative-style record and to the LUC format record at the begining of the next Committee meeting; make public (email/website posting) both the narrative-style and LUC format records. The Chairman said he would read the memorandum and decide what action to take before the next meeting. Not much substantive done with regard to the Criteria themselves. The Chairman decided that henceforth, the minutes of the meetings would be abbreviated and make no attempt to be verbatim summaries. The meeting ended with a few inchoate remarks on the meaning of "setback" and on setbacks and buffers.

Next meeting: (I am way behind in the updating of this commentary - sorry!)

 

Documents Relevant to Big Box Review

The following list brings together documents relevant to the Big Box Review process. Most of these are referenced elsewhere also: on web pages from other sites, on other web pages from this site, or on this web page.

  1. Big Box Ordinance
    1. Documents/Big-Box.html [web page]
    2. Big Box ordinance - current performance criteria as given by the LUC; from Ordinance 9293 (September 27, 1999) and the amending Ordinance 9666 (January 29, 2002) [PDF file, 254 Kbytes]
    3. Ordinance 9293 - the "Big Box" Amendment of the Land Use Code (September 27, 1999) [PDF file, 1164 Kbytes]
    4. Large Retail Establishments (Big Boxes) - Draft Amendment - rejected by Mayor and Council except for paragraph passed as Ordinance No. 9666; NOTE: some other paragraphs likely will be carried over into the new draft amendments (January 28, 2002) [PDF file, 36KB]
    5. Ordinance 9666 - Amending portions of the Tucson Code concerning Large Retail Establishments (January 29, 2002) [PDF file, 242 Kbytes]
    6. typescript file with both Ordinance 9293 and Ordinance 9666 (for fast download; for ease of extracting and editing fragments) [TXT file, 27 Kbytes]

  2. Big Box Review - documents available from the Planning Department, often as attachments to BBSC agenda
    1. mission statement 5/9/02 [HTML file, 6 Kbytes]
    2. comparison of City and other ordinances 5/2/02 [PDF file, 44 Kbytes]
    3. proposed summary of Big Box revision issues 5/23/02 - by Frank Bangs [HTML file, 28 Kbytes]
    4. issues of concern 4/17/02 - Planning Department [HTML file, 5 Kbytes]
    5. LUC Sec 5.4 Administrative Procedures - for several sections separately, see above [PDF file, 421 Kbytes, 62 pages]
    6. LUC Sec 3.5.9.7 Large Retail Establishment Design Criteria 6/6/02 [PDF file, 90 Kbytes, 6 pages]
    7. memorandum from Sarah More 6/6/02 Outline for a tier of procedural requirements [PDF file, 74 Kbytes]
    8. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 6/13/02:
      C-2 Commercial Zone - LRE sections 6/13/02 [HTML file, 18 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 6/13/02 [HTML file, 29 Kbytes]
    9. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 7/11/02:
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 7/11/02 [PDF file, 25.6 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 7/11/02 [PDF file, 23.5 Kbytes]
      C-2 Commercial Zone - annotated working draft 7/11/02 [PDF file, 13.9 Kbytes]
    10. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 8/1/02:
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 8/1/02 [PDF file, 28.5 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 8/1/02 [PDF file, 34.4 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 8/1/02 [HTML file, 79.6 Kbytes]
    11. Development Review Board (DRB, LUC 5.1.8) 8/8/02 [PDF file, 16.1 Kbytes]
    12. Procedures (Admin, Appeals - relevant to LRE) 8/15/02 [PDF file, 23.4 Kbytes]
    13. Procedures (Admin, Appeals - relevant to LRE) 8/29/02 [PDF file, 24.9 Kbytes]
    14. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 9/19/02:
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 9/19/02 [PDF file, 34.9 Kbytes]
      Commercial Zones - LRE-related sections 9/19/02 [HTML file, 99.1 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 9/19/02 [PDF file, 46.2 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 9/19/02 [HTML file, 114.1 Kbytes]
    15. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 10/8/02:
      LRE Performance Criteria 10/8/02 [PDF file, 47.1 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 10/8/02 [HTML file, 110.0 Kbytes]
    16. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 10/22/02:
      LRE Performance Criteria 10/22/02 - Rupley/Bangs revisions, compiled by Staff and based on 10/15/02 BBSC meeting [PDF file, 53.9 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 10/22/02 - Rupley/Bangs revisions, compiled by Staff and based on 10/15/02 BBSC meeting [HTML file, 66.3 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 10/22/02 - Staff draft [PDF file, 42.8 Kbytes]
    17. Draft of BBord in standard LUC format, working papers 10/29/02:
      LRE Performance Criteria 10/29/02 - Rupley/Bangs revisions, compiled by Staff and based on 10/15/02 and 10/22/02 BBSC meetings [PDF file, 73.9 Kbytes]
      LRE Performance Criteria 10/29/02 - Rupley/Bangs revisions, compiled by Staff and based on 10/15/02 and 10/22/02 BBSC meetings [HTML file, 101.6 Kbytes]
    18. Draft revision of the Big Box Ordinance - 11/13/02 - Text submitted to the Planning Commission for their advance review. The Study Session is tentatively scheduled for the December 4 Planning Commission meeting.
      Draft Land Use Code Amendment - 11/13/02 [PDF file, 23.8 Kbytes]
      Draft Land Use Code Amendment - 11/13/02 [HTML file, 27.4 Kbytes]

  3. Meeting Summaries, Working Papers - unless otherwise attributed, written by John Rupley in collaboration with the "pre-bbsc"-meetings group.
    1. typescript files useful for drafting changes or whatever: big box ordinances 9293 and 9666 and el con resolution 18489 and conditions; PRINCIPAL DOCUMENTS [TXT files, 27 and 46 Kbytes]
    2. comments on LRE ordinance update 4/4/02 - memorandum to Rob Tomlinson [PDF file, 93 Kbytes]
    3. issues of concern 5/31/02; PRINCIPAL DOCUMENT [HTML file, 7 Kbytes]
    4. effecting changes in the BB ordinance 5/30/02; PRINCIPAL DOCUMENT [HTML file, 7 Kbytes]
    5. comments on Sarah More memorandum (6/6/02) - outline of a tier of procedural requirements [TXT file, 4 Kbytes]
    6. comments on procedures of 1/28/2002 draft ordinance (6/6/02) [TXT file, 3 Kbytes]
    7. comparison of Type III Legislative and Type V Administrative procedures (6/6/02) [TXT file, 1 Kbyte]
    8. proposed Purpose/Intent and Applicability/Procedure sections (6/13/02): remains useful as statement of our intent in proposing code revisions, and as guide to types of change in administrative procedure to be proposed; out of date and of little value except as an expression of early intent - narrative format [TXT file, 12 Kbyte]
    9. proposed Performance Criteria (7/28/02): incrementally revised, starting with 6/6/02 draft of Sections B.1-3; remains useful as easy-to-read version containing most of current revisions and proposed revisions of Sections A.1-12, as embodied in LUC-code-format version; out of date and of little value except as an expression of early intent - narrative format [TXT file, 11.5 Kbyte]
    10. information sheets for 6/17/02 meeting at C. Tanz home:
      agenda for T.U.C.S.O.N. meeting (CT; 6/17/02) [HTML file, 14.3 Kbyte]
      setbacks comparison - edited (CT; 6/17/02) [HTML file, 32.7 Kbyte]
      noise limits (CT; 6/17/02) [HTML file, 10.8 Kbyte]
      BBSC - summary of progress (JAR; 6/17/02) [TXT file, 1.8 Kbyte]
      comments on n'hood influence on BBSC actions (JAR; 6/17/02) [TXT file, 1.7 Kbyte]
    11. memorandum to Rob Tomlinson (JAR; 6/20/02) - emerging structure of the BB ordinance and neighborhood input [PDF file, 129 Kbyte]
    12. Working papers 8/15/02 - 8/21/02; out of date and of little value except as an expression of early intent:
    13. for RECENT PRINCIPAL DOCUMENTS, see Big Box Review - CURRENT WORK

  4. El Con Mall Development Agreement
    1. Documents/Elcon.hml [web page]
    2. Resolution No. 18489 and El Con Mall Development Agreement - file (1) (February 14, 2000) [PDF file, 15 pages, 2016 Kbytes]
    3. Exhibit C, the El Con Mall Conditions - file (2); includes the mitigations except for conditions regarding access from 5th Street, which are in file (1) (February 14, 2000) [PDF file, 9 pages, 995 Kbytes]
    4. typescript file with both Resolution No. 18489 and the Agreement (file 1) and the Conditions (file 2, Exhibit C) [TXT file, 46 Kbytes]

  5. Other Information
    1. group meetings [DIRECTORY LISTING]
    2. collection of noise ordinances and related information [DIRECTORY LISTING]

 

Documents Relevant to Land Use in General

Visualizing the Land Use Code

Can one visualize the Land Use Code (LUC) on a computer display? Or equivalently, can one develop a numerical representation of the LUC? The answer of course is "Yes", else this paragraph would not have been written. Whether such a representation is useful, more than an amusement, may be open to question.

For a somewhat-detailed discussion please see the TXT file, Visualization of luc criteria, or consider the sequence of in-principle operations:

How does one look at a high-dimensional object? The representation of multivariate data is a classic problem. If you have never seen Minard's 1861 graph showing Napoleon's Russian campaign of 1812-13 and the death of a half-million men, please look at the classic image or a recent computer-friendly version. An historical overview of the display problem, also well worth a look, is given in Milestones in the history of ... data visualization, from York Univ. Listed there is my favorite tool for data mining, XGobi, from AT&T and Bellcore Research.

XGobi can be used to visualize subspaces of the LUC, as in this sample XGobi display, which is an image of the vector endpoints corresponding to the by-right (red) and to the Type IV (yellow) and Type V (green) Special Exception approval procedures, in the 11-dimensional subspace of SpLUC defined by the elements of 3.5.9.7 applicable to the by-right procedure.

If your system can handle an X-window display, then the file Visualization of luc criteria gives instructions for logging onto an X-server with XGobi.

       Read more in this TXT file.....

 

Hudson River Valley Greenway Compact Program

The Hudson River Valley Greenway is designed to enhance the character and economy of the Valley through thinking regionally and acting locally. Greenway programs, developed locally, attempt to balance economic development and protection of cultural and natural resources. Participation is encouraged by State-provided carrots, without any apparent threat of the stick. Dutchess County, the first to participate, has several county plans linked to the Greenway program; for descriptions, see Greenway Connections and the common policy framework for the various regional participants.

These plans appear exceptionally forward-looking and innovative. Carmen Vitello brought them to our attention, commenting:

There are probably other places that have created this sort of plan, but my head just swam when I first saw it and realized that there was actually a county government that was concerned with its local character and heritage -- and had the foresight to try to head-off unregulated sprawl.

 

 

Traffic

Traffic Physics and Traffic Analysis

by John Rupley
 

This web page is sketchy, in near outline form, and comprised principally of links to websites or articles or simulations. It was constructed from a set of notes, in the form of logged websites, assembled out of curiosity about what's been happening in the modeling of traffic flow and not with the intent of developing a careful review of the field. Please expect a significant number of the referenced URL's to be dead, owing to instability of university and local government systems.

       Read more.....

 

 

Miscellaneous, Amusing, .....

Ising Model Analysis of the Developer-Neighbor (D-N) Problem

by J. A. Velina
 
[edited by John Rupley]
 

We report here a theoretical treatment of the well-known Developer-Neighbor (D-N) problem. Our analysis provides deep understanding, explains observed effects, and predicts the optimal resolution of the problem.

We address the D-N problem through the Ising model.

       Read more.....

 

From the Wall Street Journal

-- "Emiliano, what do you think of communism?

-- Explain to me what it is.

-- For example, all the people of a village farm . . . their lands together and then they distribute the harvest equally.

-- Who makes the distribution?

-- A representative or a council elected by the community.

-- Well look, as far as I'm concerned, if any "somebody" . . . would try to dispose of the fruits of my labor in that way . . . I will fill him full of bullets."

 

DaimlerChrysler's belated embrace of Albert Einstein as a "German" was foreseen by Einstein himself. He once remarked, "If relativity is proved right, the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss will call me Swiss and the French will call me a world citizen. If relativity is proved wrong, the French will call me Swiss, the Swiss will call me German and the Germans will call me a Jew."

 

Philosophical conversations

At Competitive Enterprise Institute's annual dinner, OMB director Mitch Daniels gives example of philosophical conversations with his college-age daughter: "If James Carville and Geraldo Rivera were both drowning, and you could only save one, would you read the paper or eat lunch?"

 

Home   |  Welcome   |  Top   |  Contact us   |  Site-Map

URL: http://urban-issues.com/Current-Events/index.html
Last revised: February 8, 2003
John Rupley: rupley@u.arizona.edu