The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - June 20, 1990 (72)Cu0NCIL COMMUNICATION TO: THE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JUNE 20, 1990 FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SUBJECT: DETERMINATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CITY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN INDICATED ACTION: Determination of the effective date of the City's. Growth Management Plan. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the Shirtsleeve Session of Tuesday, May 22, 1990 the teer�ng Committee asked for City Council clarification on the eve opens following: 1. General pian adoption date. 2. Sewer Treatment Plant addition completion date. 3. Date annexation requests will be accepted. 4. Date when new residential construction permits will be issued. 5. Percent of annual growth rate and the resultant number of units per year. 6. Date from which annual growth rates will be calculated and the approximate number of units that represents. 7. Housing mix (e.g. what percentage of new housing will be multiple and what percentage will be single-family). At that meeting the City Council indicated that it would make a decision on Item 6 above at the Regular Session of June 20, 1990. Based on discussion with the developers, property owners, school representative and other interested citizens, the following dates have received the most comments: 1. August 1981 - the effective date of Measure "A", "The Greenbelt Initiative". 2. February 1986 - the date the Superior Court declared Measure "A" in conflict with State Annexation Laws. 3. September 1989 - the date the Appellate Court upheld the Superior Court decision. 4. 1990 - the date of the final adoption of the updated Lodi General Plan. By choosing either the 1981 or 1986 dates the City would provide growth far in excess of any previously experienced in Lodi. Using the Appellate Cour date in 1989 would require allocating two years (i.e. 1989-90 and 1990-91) which would translate into 2032 additional people in 791 units.. Designating the date of the General Plan adoption would yield a one year total of 1006 persons in 392 units. n � � JA S B. SCHR DER rur.ity Development Director CC9013i71XTD.01C June 11, 1990 1 Sand v utin�Cou yt � E .5 �.a ��. .off ,gam?�t�•x z Ari` MSA F ^� r � -x_ T ''K�"•zr 'x" x ��a;r ��,� � �?j�'yy'P: �< ! � ��,.�i��'k+�" �•� 'i ��.�ur��,T; ^i✓h011a4 Y, X' " aero• i R0"'VE:1ZNJE Px )ATORY DEVEDD-PERk FEES AND ? GROWTH MANAGEMENT Presentation to the Lodi City Council Prepared by JLJW 20,1990 5u Juit i e Coeec j Coto it of &overwe'te EXHIBIT CATEGORICAL ALLOCATIONS PASSENGER RAIL & BUS (32.5°16 RAIL/BUS STATIONS RAIL CORRIDORS INTER -CITY TRANSIT COMMUNTEIINTRA•CITY TRANSIT BICY CLES CONGESTION RELIEF (25.0%) RAILROAD CROSSINGS (7.5%) Exhibit SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION/AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN Exhibit. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION/AIR QUALITY IlMROVEMENT PLAN Passenger Rail and Bus Service Mations ents ements ments -' DRAFT (10th Pev.) 6/15/ RAILROAD CROSSING SAFETY PROJECTS Railroad crossing safety projectslistedbelow are eligible for funding. These are grade separation facility..:projects meant to separate local roads and streets from railroads. " This can be done through the construction of overpasses or' underpasses* ' The Authority must establish criteria for setting priorities.on these projects and periodically- review the list and the criteria. Lodi Planning Area Lodi Ave, Underpass at SPRR Lathrop Planning Area Louise Ave. at UPRR and SPRR or Lathrop Rd. at UPRR and SPRR Manteca Planning Area Center St. at SPRR Louise Ave. at SPRR Airport Why at SPRR Ripon Planning Area Jack Tone at SPRR on Planning Area Hammer at UPRR Hammer at SPRR March at UPRR March at SPRR French Camp Rd. at UPRR Lower Sacramento Rd. at UPRR Tracy Planning Area Tracy Blvd. at SPRR Eleventh St. at SPRR LOCAL DEVELOPER FEES Mandatory by July 1,1991 Authority will develop criteria Jurisdictions without fee will loose Street Repair funds a= GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Consistent with Prop III Congestion Management Program LOS standard not below E level Standards for public transit Element to promote alternative transportation modes Development review process Use of Regional computer model and data base COMPARISON OF TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLANS Adminis- Street Congestion Bus/ Rail Dev County IYears Revenue tration !{Repair Relief Rail@ Xings GMP Fee San Joaquin -------------f..- 1 J 20 - 400.0 ---------------....i-------------------------------....... to 1% f 1 35.0% 25.0% 32.5% 7.5% Y Y Riverside -------------f--- l 1 20 ............... 870.0 .99% ------f...................................... I f 40.9% 54.1% 6.3% N N Contra Costa ------------- i f 20 ................. 807.0 2.95% -------f----................ f f 19.3% 41.2% 38.3% -........ Y --------- Y Ventura ---.......... i l 20 f................ 500.0 to 1% --...... f f 20.0% f........... 60.0%a -.......... 20.0% -....... Y -....... Y San Mateo ------------- f f 20 I ........................ 804.1 1.8% f 1 19.9% ...................................... 29.3% 50.0% 22.8% N N San Benito -------------1-------- 1 10 15.5 . ............. to A f f 0.0% -------------------------------------- 100.0% 0.0% N Y Santa Clara ------------- f 1 20 I ------------------------ 986.5 .91% I 1 0.0% f ----...-----...-----------------...... 99.1% 0.0% N N Fresno ----------- --f........ I 1 20 884.0 ----------------f----- to A I ( 25.0% ....... 75.0% -......................... 0.0% N N Alameda ............. i f 15 1..................... 860.0 .52% ---1....... I i 21.3% 50.70 --........ 32.3% -.................... N Y San Bernadino( ------------- f 20 I ........................ 1,617.0 '% I 45.0% I ............... 42.7% -...................... 12.3% Y Y San Diego -------------1------------------------ I 1 20 2,270.0 to 1% I 1 33.0% -------- 33.0% ------------------------------ 34.0% N N !- Adminstrative costs taken from the I gross sales tax collections and includes salaries and benefits, services and supplies @- Mass Transit includes passenger rail, a- Includes unspecified E's for rail rtx� r ORDINANCE HIGHLIGHTS �► MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT FOR ALL PROGRAMS FUNDED EACH JURISDICTION MUST HAVE TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE GROWTH MANAGEMENT LANGUAGE INCLUDED I*- AUTHORITY COMMITTEES o Management and Financial Advisory City Managers and County Administrator o Technical Coordinating Planning/Public Works Directors, Caltrans District 10, SMTD, APCD, others o Citizens Review Appointed by the Authority to fairly represent geographical, social, cultural and economic mix I*- BONDING AUTHORITY i AMENDMENT PROCESS o Plan can only be amended lx per year o Requires 2/3's vote of the Authority ' o Authority must hold a public hearing APPEAL PROCESS o Appealing agency must pass resolution and deliver to Authority o Appealing agency has 45 days to get supporting resolutions from a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population D CONTRACTING FOR DELIVERABILITY o Faster o More economical F 9 ON SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY'S TWENTY YEAR UNFUNDED TRANSPORTATION NEEDS $1.9 BILLION REVENUE DOLLARS Gas Tax 300 M Rail Bonds 100 M Sales Tax 400 M Mitigation Fees 500 M RENFUGSHORTFALL $600MMNOW `- i �, L'�N�. CHAMBERS'SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS EXPENDITURE HIGHLIGHTS Whose Receiving Over o Approval O� Passenger Rail to the Bay Area ReiZectors on All Roads for Frog conditions Leal Tn, naportaflan Authority And Expendliture Flan A09ption Proceo, (SB44,2) • Representing a majority of the incorporated population.